When we take into consideration the inexperience of this nation with large armies, there is cause for congratulation that the instances of cruelty and unwarranted severity have been proportionately so few. And yet there have been some instances of pitiless malevolence inflicted upon a class of offenders who least deserve it. We are aware of the penalties for disobedience to orders which naturally belong to a military system. In accordance with the military code, disobedience is a heinous crime. So when the officials were confronted with refusal to obey orders, even though the offenders were of the highest character, the mind of the militarist could view the offense from only one angle. We are referring to the treatment accorded to some--not all--of the “conscientious objectors.” They constituted an exceedingly small proportion of the American Army which at the time the armistice was signed numbered 3,665,000. The number altogether of those conscripted whose religious convictions forbade them to use carnal weapons was about 3,900--less than one-ninth of one per cent. of the vast American Army.[3] Of these 1,300 accepted non-combatant service and 1,500 were allowed to be employed on farms or to aid France and Belgium in the work of reconstruction of their ruined homes and devastated lands. Our latest advices inform that 527 of these “conscientious objectors” have been court-martialed and sent to the Military Prison at Fort Leavenworth. A majority of these belong to religious bodies whose creeds are opposed to war. These men were not hunting for trouble. Conscription brought them from their peaceful homes and from their farms where they were so much needed to aid in increasing the food supply of the nation. They were living inoffensively and were brought into difficulties by no overt act. It is not our intention to uphold or combat their interpretation of “The Sermon on the Mount.” They were men who were regarded as useful, upright members of the communities where they resided. Some of them belonged to bodies whose members have been foremost in every philanthropic effort for the last two centuries. We may attach no special virtue to works of superogation, yet we venture to suggest that men and women who in times of peace have been foremost in honest industrial pursuits, who have been prominent in all movements to advance the best interests of the community, who have devoted their time and their means lavishly to social betterment, should in time of war be entitled to some consideration on account of their past services in the uplift of humanity. Between the ages of 21 and 31, less than one to every 36,000 were found who claimed immunity from military service on account of their creed, and as many of these accepted some form of non-combatant service, the number absolutely refusing to comply with any military command was less than one out of 60,000 conscripts. Would it not have been wiser to allow these men