“... The War Department immediately upon having conditions at the Disciplinary Barracks called to its attention, instituted an investigation. The report of that investigation disclosed the fact that the trouble at Leavenworth was due, not at all to the administration of the prison, but to the regulations which were ill-adapted to the unusual type of prisoner that the Selective Service Act brought to military prisons. The Secretary at once made some appropriate modifications of those regulations and has called a conference to consider further changes in disciplinary regulations, not only to meet this unusual condition but to bring the Army’s disciplinary methods up to the most modern penological standards, in case they shall be found to be deficient. The conference will also consider ways of meeting the immediate emergency of the overcrowding of disciplinary barracks due to the increased size of the Army during the war. The conference will come to its conclusions in the near future and you may be assured that action leading out of its conclusions will be promptly taken.” “Very truly, “F. P. KEPPEL, “_Third Assistant Secretary_.” Confidential orders, recently made known, of the War Department, issued in October, 1918, prescribed that those conscripts, refusing on account of conscientious scruples to perform military service, should not be treated as traitors or as guilty of rank insubordination. The Government thus in some form recognized the validity of their scruples. As a rule such persons were entirely segregated from the other men. For a time solitary confinement was discontinued, but we regret to report that at the military prison at Leavenworth some 25 of these objectors have recently been remanded to cellular isolation. One of these men has for some time been engaged in Christian work under the auspices of the Y. M. C. A. Very recently he received a visit from a gentleman in whose office he had often been a visitor, but his mind seemed a blank, as he did not appear to recognize his visitor who called to offer services. This mode of punishment was having its logical effect. We fully endorse the attitude of the U. S. Government as indicated in its Official Bulletin, No. 113, page 5:--“Accustomed as these leaders have been for many years to universal military service, to a large standing army, ... to marked class distinctions, they have absorbed, and are now wedded to, certain notions which to us, who have grown up under very different conditions, seem like worship of constituted authority and the unwarranted surrender of individual responsibility. The gradual development of these very notions has brought about an inordinate influence of the military group in public affairs.” We rejoice that our Government so clearly sets forth the evils of a military authority, the spirit of which is so manifestly opposed to the genius of our free institutions.