chly arrayed.
It always took part in metropolitan rejoicings, heartily and
generously. But my interest was centred in the soldiers; fired then by
a longing to shoulder a musket. I waited impatiently for the freedom of
manhood and a fitting opportunity. When both came I enlisted in a city
regiment, and continued the connection till after the close of the late
civil war.

Twenty years of service with musket and sabre failed to dull my
enthusiasm. I left it, warned by the heaviness of approaching age and
the demands of business, convinced of the propriety, the usefulness,
and the value of a well regulated militia force.

Aware of how much has been said and written against such service, and
of the misapprehension of those who had never studied its organization,
its possibilities, and necessity, I propose to draw upon the practical
experience of the past twenty-five years for the purpose of correcting
wrong views without and suggesting new measures within. The service has
been charged with costliness, uselessness, and pretentious display;
with vain ambition, absence of organic purpose, and with being inimical
to the morality of the individual member. All the charges have some
foundation for their utterance, though the evils referred to are not
the legitimate results of the organization, but rather the baleful
fruit of irresponsible and ignorant commissions. The service is really
worthy of conscientious labor and the support of the people.

In the present relations of government and society, a disciplined
militia force is an essential part of the body politic, and an organism
with vitality if properly administered. The central idea of the
organization is a military body, directly from the people, for the
conservation of governmental integrity and a protection to the State.
Its collateral uses are an initial school for soldierly training, and
in cities especially a supplementary and occasional aid to the police
forces. In a general way the central idea is accepted, but in
particulars is not carried out in equity between governments and the
people. The theory is that the people are the State, and therefore must
provide their own protection, but under proper authority. The authority
exacts the service, at a great cost to the State, but denies reasonable
compensation and encouragement to the individual member; therefore the
people are not in sympathy with the organization. The service is
brought in conflict with the people, in