DO WE WANT RIFLE PRACTICE 
 IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS? 
 
 Answers by President Eliot, 
 Professor John Dewey, Andrew 
 Carnegie, Jane Addams, Ed- 
 ward Everett Heile, and Others. 
 
PEACE ASSOCIATION OF FRIENDS 
 20 SOUTH TWELFTH STREET 
 PHILADELPHIA 
 
^tAy03 rn.B.s, 
 
 '3^\.TS3 
 
 A_ 
 
 DO WE WANT RIFLE PRACTICE IN THE 
 PUBLIC SCHOOLS? 
 
 T he proposal to introduce rifle practice into our public 
 schools has been made recently with such seriousness and 
 from such high quarters as to demand attention from all 
 interested in the progress and welfare of our schools. 
 
 The following pages contain the opinions of some of the 
 most prominent educators and leaders of thought in the United 
 States in regard to this proposal. These opinions are mostly 
 from replies to a recent letter asking for an expression on the 
 subject. 
 
 The advocates of systematic rifle practice for boys as part 
 of the public school curriculum urge that a nation of trained 
 marksmen is a valuable preparation for war. They assume that 
 training a nation for the practice of war is of greater importance 
 than training a nation for the practice of peace, thus seeming to 
 ignore the broader pedagogical and practical aspects of the 
 question. 
 
 The views of the eminent men and women who have con- 
 tributed to this pamphlet are presented for the deliberate con- 
 sideration of those to whom the management of our schools is 
 entrusted. 
 
 
/ 
 
 GOVERNOR CHARLES E. HUGHES 
 
 From a Speech delivered in New York City, 1907. 
 
 “ We can no longer look to war for the development 
 of either national or individual character. The heroics of 
 war have been replaced by mathematical calculations. If 
 it was ever anything else, it is now unmitigated horror, 
 exhibiting chiefly fiendish aspects of ingenuity and scientific 
 skill in destruction. Under our modern conditions of 
 civilization the supposed beneficent results of war in the 
 development of courage and stamina must in any con- 
 ceivable event be shared by so few of our teeming popu- 
 lations that even the most sanguinary must realize that the 
 time has gone by, when, by any stretch of imagination it 
 can be regarded as a general disciplinary agent. And in 
 the controversies of peace and in the bloodless struggles 
 for the maintenance of truth and justice in our personal 
 and civic relations must be found the arena of the future 
 in which character may find severer tests than ever were 
 aflForded by historic battlefield.” 
 
 2 
 
CHARLES W. ELIOT, 
 
 President of Harvard University. 
 
 ^^Rifle practice seems to me unsuitable for school exercise, 
 because the pupils are not old enough for it, even if it were a 
 desirable form of bodily training. Military drill, quite apart 
 from rifle practice, seems to me one of the poorest forms of 
 bodily exercise, very inferior to most gymnasium exercises, and 
 to all free sports. There is too much routine and automatic 
 action in it, and too much repression of individual freedom. 
 The only good part of it is the setting-up drill, which can easily 
 be made a gymnastic exercise without military accompaniments. 
 Rifle practice is in my judgment, only fit for an elective exer- 
 cise at the college or technical school age. At that time it 
 interests profitably some young men who feel the hunting instinct 
 or who mean to serve in the militia. Even then it is a difficult 
 exercise to maintain, because it requires the use of an expensive 
 and perhaps distant range. 
 
 ‘‘You will observe that I am opposed to rifle practice be- 
 cause it seems to me, on general pedagogic principles, unsuitable 
 and untimely in the public schools.” 
 
 HENRY CHURCHILL KING, 
 
 President of Oberlin College. 
 
 “I should be sorry to see rifle practice introduced into the 
 public schools of the country. I think the evils would largely 
 outweigh the advantages.” 
 
 DAVID STARR JORDAN, 
 
 President of Leland Stanford Junior University. 
 
 “I do not think that accurate shooting necessarily makes 
 for militarism. I do not, however, believe in the introduction of 
 rifle practice in the public school curriculum.” 
 
 3 
 
ISAAC SHARPLESS, 
 President of Haverford College. 
 
 ‘‘I should deplore the introduction of rifle practice or any 
 other practice which would tend to develop a military spirit in 
 the public schools of the country. The tendencies of the age 
 are toward industrial and international peace, and any block in 
 this progress is a serious menace to the ultimate prosperity and 
 standards of the country. 
 
 ‘‘I was somewhat surprised and quite delighted to find, in a 
 recent visit at Cambridge University, England, that these senti- 
 ments were largely shared by educated Englishmen and that the 
 tendency to discourage rifle practice was quite marked.” 
 
 PROFESSOR SAMUEL T. DUTTON, 
 
 Teachers College, Columbia University. 
 
 ‘T am decidedly opposed to introducing rifle practice into city 
 public or private schools. I believe there are other forms of 
 physical and mental training which are better for young people 
 and that the use of a rifle under any circumstances by children 
 should be a matter to be controlled by parents only. 
 
 ‘‘There are several objections to the introduction of rifle 
 practice into schools. One is that the use of dangerous weapons 
 in any kind of sport does not need to be stimulated. It is 
 attended with a certain element of danger and in many ways 
 needs to be restrained rather than encouraged. Secondly, to in- 
 troduce this form of activity implies that as a nation, we are 
 likely to go to war. No sane person believes that under present 
 conditions there is any need of war. A sufficient army and navy 
 for police duty can be provided, and this, supplemented by the 
 state militia, is enough.” 
 
 4 
 
PROFESSOR JOHN DEWEY, 
 
 Columbia University. 
 
 would be a long step backward in the traditions of the 
 American people and of American education to introduce rifle 
 practice into our public schools. Aside from the general objec- 
 tions from the standpoint of civilization, humanity and moral 
 progress, which ought to be absolutely final, the objections from 
 the standpoint of school administration and discipline are most 
 serious. It would introduce another distracting factor where 
 high-school boys are already over distracted and stimulated, and 
 would increase the evil force of the exciting and distracting 
 conditions that already, especially in our cities, are more than 
 powerful enough. It is undemocratic, barbaric, and scholastic- 
 ally wholly unwise.” 
 
 PROFESSOR CHARLES ZUEBLIN, 
 
 University of Chicago. 
 
 ^‘Rifle practice in the public schools would be peculiarly ab- 
 horrent to me. I hope our schools may instil ideals of peace. As 
 disarmament seems at present utopian, I think the Swiss military 
 system, demanding one year of each able-bodied man, might be 
 utilized to develop skill of marksmanship of mature men, whose 
 main activities would be useful work for the government. But 
 athletics and manual training are infinitely preferable in the 
 schools.” 
 
 JANE ADDAMS, 
 
 Hull-House, Chicago. 
 
 ‘^I am of course shocked at any proposition to introduce 
 rifle practice into the public schools. 
 
 5 
 
‘‘The increasing number of accidents and murders due to 
 the totally unnecessary and illegal ‘carrying of concealed 
 weapons,’ makes it difficult to understand why familiarity with 
 fire arms should be encouraged. If war is to continue, at least 
 let us insist that the use of fire arms shall be confined to the 
 soldier, as strictly as the surgeon’s knife is limited to the man 
 professionally prepared to use it.” 
 
 CAROLINE HAZARD, 
 
 President of Wellesley College. 
 
 “I shall be very sorry to have rifle practice, or anything 
 which involves the use of arms, introduced into our public 
 schools. The modern custom of having toy pistols as play- 
 things for young boys, seems to me a most injurious one, and if 
 it should be carried farther, and practice in fire arms included as 
 part of the school education, it seems to me a decided step would 
 be taken in the wrong direction. 
 
 “We are better situated than any country in the world almost, 
 to maintain peace with our neighbors, and the thought of war and 
 strife should not be made a familiar one to our young people.” 
 
 MARY E. WOOLLEY, 
 
 President of Mount Holyoke College. 
 
 “You are quite right in thinking that I believe that the in- 
 troduction of rifle practice into our school system would be a 
 backward step, and a real menace to the progress of the peace 
 movement. I cannot see that there is anything to be said in 
 favor of its introduction, while I feel that the strongest arguments 
 may be urged against it. 
 
 “It seems to me, first, a waste of money, when the schools 
 of the country are often handicapped by the lack of suitable 
 
 6 
 
buildings, sufficient equipment, and adequate salaries for the 
 teachers. Secondly, I believe that it is a waste of time. There 
 is constant complaint that students are overcrowded with work 
 and have not time for recreation and physical exercise. Rifle 
 practice certainly would not give the best sort of physical exer- 
 cise, or the kind of recreation which is desirable. Its influence 
 in promoting a spirit of warfare, rather than of peace, goes with- 
 out saying.” 
 
 LUCIA AMES MEAD, 
 
 Boston. 
 
 ^^So far as I know, no nation has yet used its people’s taxes 
 to teach school boys the art of killing. The training has no 
 pedagogic value. It would cost money, sorely needed to teach 
 the use of the tools of industry, to prepare for the perennial fight 
 against pauperism, disease and crime. 
 
 ‘‘Rifle shooting in the schools would be an unprecedented 
 measure, implying some new national danger to justify it. No 
 such danger exists except in the minds of yellow journalists and 
 some military men. For 119 years we have had only five years 
 of war with foreign powers, and were invaded only in 1812. 
 We no longer fear England, for we leave our northern frontier 
 unguarded. We have no quarrel with any nation and our real 
 enemies are those within our midst. Teach the power of 
 organized ostracism as a substitute for guns ; a nation that feeds 
 Europe ninety days a year can always bring a force to bear far 
 greater than a navy. Neutralize our Philippines, and we shall 
 need no more guns to defend our western shores ; establish peace 
 budgets, and with the wise expenditure of one dollar for concilia- 
 tion for every thousand spent on war, we can substitute methods 
 for winning friends for methods of killing suppositious enemies.” 
 
 7 
 
NATHAN C. SCHAEFFER 
 Superintendent of Public Instruction in Pennsylvania. 
 
 Extract from his Inaugural Address as resident of the National Educational Association, 
 Los Angeles, 1907. 
 
 ^‘Peace has become so great a shibboleth that the introduc- 
 tion of rifle practice into the public schools is now advocated as 
 a peace measure. The experience of our recent wars, it is held, 
 has pointed out that, while there is no difliculty in case of war 
 in getting all the volunteers that the country requires, and they 
 can be given a reasonable amount of drill in a few weeks, it 
 takes them a long time to learn to shoot, and that unless they 
 can shoot accurately they are of little value as soldiers. If, 
 however, the young men who are graduating from our high 
 schools in the different States should be skilled riflemen, the 
 country can rest content with a small standing army, knowing 
 that in case of war it can put into the field at short notice a 
 force of volunteers whose skill in rifle shooting will make them 
 to be fully the equal of any army which may be brought against 
 them. The system is therefore a great factor for national peace. 
 As a teacher from the State which William Penn founded, I 
 must put a big interrogation point after this theory. The fact 
 that boys at the age of thirteen can learn to shoot 
 with marvelous accuracy should be correlated with the fact 
 that at the same age, and even earlier, boys can be taught 
 all sorts of break-neck acrobatics ; no one would, on account 
 of the skill which may thus be acquired, be justified in ad- 
 vocating the introduction of either acrobatics or rifle practice 
 into the curriculum of our public schools. There is a 
 limitation to the kinds of skill which a human being may 
 acquire, and the development of skill in these directions inter- 
 
 8 
 
feres seriously with the development of skill in other and more 
 useful lines. The development of skill in shooting is desirable 
 on the part of those who join the army or the State con- 
 stabulary ; but if during a strike every striker were a skilled 
 rifleman, the difliculties in maintaining order would be infinitely 
 multiplied.” 
 
 From MRS. HARRY HASTINGS, 
 
 New York City. 
 
 ^^The brutalizing effect of this rifle practice, if it becomes 
 general, is only a question of time ; its antagonism to the 
 Peace Cause is indisputable.” 
 
 EDMUND A. JONES, 
 
 State Commissioner of Common Schools, Columbus, Ohio. 
 
 have just returned from the Peace Conference in New 
 York, and you may naturally infer that I am not much in favor 
 of military instruction in our public schools. I can readily see 
 that some advantages may result to our boys in an erect and 
 manly bearing from a military drill in marching, etc., but I do 
 not believe it is advisable to place rifles in the hands of boys of 
 thirteen years and over in our public schools. I served in the 
 civil war and was wounded in the defense of my country at that 
 time, but I believe we have reached a time in our civilization 
 when international difliculties can be settled by arbitration with- 
 out the horrors and sacrifices of war.” 
 
 9 
 
MASON S. STONE, 
 
 Superintendent of Public Instruction in Vermont. 
 
 ‘‘I wish to state that we advise peace rather than war, and 
 while we are in favor of physical training, nevertheless we are 
 not enthusiastic over military drill in the public schools.” 
 
 FRANCIS G. BLAIR, 
 
 Superintendent of Public Instruction in Illinois. 
 
 hope sincerely that no such thing is contemplated.” 
 (He refers to arrangement for target shooting in the public 
 schools by the national government.) 
 
 GEO. H. MARTIN, 
 
 * State Board of Education, Boston, Mass. 
 
 ‘H am entirely opposed to any further development of the 
 military spirit among school boys.” 
 
 J. H. FUQUA, Sr., 
 
 Superintendent of Public Instruction in Kentucky. 
 
 don’t think our authorities would favor such a move,(i. e. 
 the introduction of rifle practice), as we desire to teach the principles 
 of peace, and not encourage in the youth a sentiment for war,” 
 
 10 
 
ANDREW CARNEGIE, 
 
 New York City. 
 
 ‘^The introduction of rifle practice into the public schools 
 would be a step backward. What ought to be taught is that 
 war is savagery, unworthy of civilized man.” 
 
 JOHN H. CONVERSE, 
 
 Philadelphia. 
 
 ‘^Believing, as I do, that the education of children as 
 supported by public taxation, should be confined as far as possible 
 to essentials, I am not in favor of any special features such as 
 instruction in rifle practice in our public schools.” 
 
 EDWARD EVERETT HALE. 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 ‘‘I am quite sure that the public schools fail in their duty 
 unless the boys and girls are trained in respect to their superiors, 
 in obedience to those in authority, in courtesy in address, in 
 kindness to all. The New Testament sums up such training 
 when it says ‘ The wisdom from above is first pure.’ 
 
 Personal Purity is the foundation. 
 
 2. Next. This ^ wisdom is peaceable.’ 
 
 Rifle practice is certainly not peaceable. 
 
 3. This ‘ wisdom is gentle.’ 
 
 ‘^If you care for what the Apostle said, he meant, that the gen- 
 tleman is one who abstains somewhat from demanding all his rights. 
 
 ^‘The gentleman is more glad to give than to receive.” 
 
 11 
 
JOHN W. FOSTER, 
 
 Former Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. 
 
 ‘‘I should regard any recommendation for the introduction 
 of rifle practice into the public schools of the country as an 
 unjustifiable and wicked act, whether issued by the War 
 Department or any other authority. 
 
 ‘‘ The natural tendency of the youth of our country to 
 military exercises is great enough already, and it is cruel to 
 stimulate in them the art of killing their fellow-men.” 
 
 CHARLES E. JEFFERSON, 
 
 Minister of Broadway Tabernacle, New York. 
 
 To keep the peace we must prepare for war.’ Some 
 one said that long ago, and men have repeated it as tho it were 
 a word from the mouth of God. Its hollowness is evident to 
 any one who will look into it. The fact is that to keep the 
 peace we must prepare for peace. If you want war, then 
 prepare for war, multiply your guns, burnish them and make 
 them shine, practice with them, keep the air filled with the 
 reverberations of the roar of cannon. Swing your fleet from one 
 ocean to another just when hearts are most irritated. Fill your 
 newspapers with accounts of what your ships are doing, crowd 
 your magazines with pictures of torpedo boats and destroyers. 
 Set all the young men of the country thinking and talking about 
 war, and then some day war will come. It is inevitable ! If a 
 nation does not want to fight it must put up its sword. It is 
 amazing that there is an intelligent man on the earth who can- 
 not see this.” 
 
 12 
 
3 0112 062155855 
 
 THE BIDDLE PRESS 
 PRINTERS 
 
 1010 CHERRY STREET 
 PHILADELPHIA