Viewing page 104 of 270

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

G-4 believes that the criticisms are sound. The law violates the whole principle of selection for the General Staff that officers should be selected solely for their ability to advise on military matters.
The records of the classes at Ft. Leavenworth from 1920-1925 show the following condition and may be of interest in this connection as indicating why more Air Service officers have not been detailed on the War Department General Staff:
[[2 Columned Table]]
| Arm| No. of honor and distinguished graduates|

| --- | --- | 

| Infantry | 104 |
| Field Infantry | 55 |
| Cavalry | 46 |
| Engineers| 27 |
| Coast Artillery| 24 |
| Medical | 7 |
| Ordnance | 5 |
| Adjutant General| 5 |
| Air Service | 3 |
| Chemical Warfare Service| 3 |
| Signal Corps | 2 |
| Judge Advocate General | 2 |
| Quartermaster Corps | 2 |
| Finance | 0 |

If the principle involved in the proposed law is permitted to exist there will be created in intensified form the very conditions the General Staff was set up to correct. The President should be asked to veto the whole vill if it contains this section. It would be better to wait for a correction of our Air Situation than to pass the bill containing this clause. 
(k) Section 6. Flying Pay.
Action recommended by G-4: Concurrence.
The Chief, Militia Bureau, states this makes no change in the present law regarding the National Guard and submits a proposed change to correct present conditions, considered by him unsatisfactory.
G-4 believes the present regulations should be revised to get more flying done for the pay given. The law permits this section.
-9-