REPORT PROVOST MARSHAL GENERAL SECRETARY OF WAR ON THE FIRST DRAFT UNDER THE fp>.^ SELECTIVE-SERVICE ACT, 1917 / 4r. "^^^fn. WASmNGlON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1918 REPORT PROVOST MARSHAL GENERAL SECRETARY OF WAR ON THE FIRST DRAFT UNDER THE SELECTIVE-SERVICE ACT, 1917 X WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1918 3^3 CONTENTS. THE SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT AND ITS ADMINISTRA- TION. I. Introduction II. Erecting tlie Registration Syetem III. The Registration IV. Organization of the System for Selection V. Apportionment of the Quotas and Allocation of Credits VI. The Selection VII. Mobilization '. VIII. Fiscal Arrangements and Cost of Draft IX. The Future age 5 X 6 XI 10 XII 11 XIII XIV 1.3 XV 21 XVI 25 XVII. 28 XVIII PART II. RESULTS OF CALLING AND SELECTION BY THE BOARDS. Page Calling the Registrants to obtain the Quota 3J 44 47 51 53 56 GO Gl G2 Rejection for Physical Disqualification Exemption and Discharge in genera' Dependency Alienage Other grounds of Exemption or Discharge Age limits Relation of Local and District Boards Industrial Necessity as a ground for discharge . LIST OF NATIONAL TABLES IN TEXT OF REPORT. 1. Registiunts called 2. Proportion of called to certified men 3. Total called compared with quota 4. Proportion of called to appeared 5. Camp strength compared with total certified 6. Quota and oamp comparisons 7. Colored citizens registered 8. Colored citizens called 0. Colored citizens accepted for National Army 10. Colored citizens in later drafts 11. Causes for nonacceptance 12. Physical rejections 13. Physical rejections and total called 11 . Physical rejections at camp 14 A. Specific camp showings for physical rejections... 15. Causes for physical rejections IG. Urban and rural rejections 17. Exemptions and discharges 18. Exemptions arid discharges, revised estimate 19. Relation of persons called to persons making claims. 20. Involuntary conscripts 21. Grounds for exemption or discharge 39 22 39 23 41 24 41 25 42 26 43 27 43 28 43 29 43 30 44 31. 44 32. 44 33. 45 34. 45 35. 46 36. 47 37. 47 .38. 47 39. 47 40, 48 41. 48 42, 51 43. Dependency exemptions or discharges Specific dependency classes Future prospects as to married men Future prospects as to available single men. . . . Alien exemptions Aliens and citizens compared Grounds of aliens' claims Aliens and declarants Naturalized citizens called and accepted Camp strength as to citizenship Aliens and citizens not yet called Nationality of aliens Allied registrants available Vocations specifically recognized Male population available, 1918 Probable acceptable men in age groups Appeal^from local boards Industrial discharges Appeals to the President Kinds of claims appealed Effect of first draft on industry at large Industrial registrants available for future drafts. 24015,' APPENDICES. LIST OP APPENDIX TABLES. Page. A. Proportion of quota to statutory enlistment credits _ _.» 73 B. Proportion of quota to actual enlistments 74 C. Per capita cost of selective-service system 75 D. Classified expenses of the States in selective-service administration 76 E. Expenditures of the Provost Marshal General's office under the Federal appropriations to date 77 F. Cost of recruiting in 1917 (9 months) 77 G. The Adjutant General's statement of cost of recruiting in 1914 and 1915 77 H. Total population and total registrants, by States 78 I. State allotments of Federal appropriations and expenditures thereunder 79 Corresponding "* table m text. 1. Proportion of registrants to called — 80 2. Proportion of called to accepted 80 4. Proportion of called to not appeared 81 8. Proportion of colored citizens registered to called 82 9. Proportion of colored citizens called to certified , 82 12. Proportion of physically examined to physically qualified 83 19. Proportion of called to clauns made for exemption or discharge 84 19. Proportion of claims made to claims granted 84 22. Proportion of married accepted to dependents excluded 85 26. Proportion of aliens called to aliens certified 86 26. Proportion of aliens discharged in 11 cities of New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, St. Louis, Cincinnati, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Boston, Seattle, San Francisco, and New Orleans 86 33. Numbers of registrant aliens allied, neutral, and enemy 87 33A. Nationality of aliens 88 39. Proportion of called to industrial claims made for discharge (agricultural and nonagricultural) 89 39. Proportion of industrial claims made to industrial claims granted (agricultural and nonagricultural) 89 39A. Belative number of claims granted, by industrial groups 90 41. Proportion of claims disallowed to presidential appeals filed, and of presidential appeals filed to appeals granted (agricultural and lonagricultural) 92 45. Numbers of registrants, gi-oas quota, credits, net quota, called, etc., shown by local boards in every State 93 LIST OF CHAKTS IN TEXT. Chart to Table — A. Proportion of quota to statutory enlistment credits _ 16 B . Proportion of quota to actual enlistments 18 C. Per capita, cost . 30 1. Proportion of registrants called and not called 40 2. Proportion of called to accepted 41 12. Proportion of physically examined to physically qualified 45 , q f A. Ratio of persons filing claims to persons called 49 ' \B. Ratio of claims granted to claims made 5D 22. Ratio of married accepted to married discharged for dependency 52 25. Ratio of married accepted to married called 54 33. Numbers of registrant aliens, allied, neutral, and enemy „ « 57 LIST OF OFFICERS. List of officers who have been on duty in the office of the Provost Marshal General - 159 4 PART I. THE SELECTIVE-SERVICE ACT AND ITS ADMINISTRATION. December 20, 1917. The Secketary of War. Sir: Herewith I submit my report upon the opera- tions of the first draft under the Selective-Service Act, 1917. I. INTRODUCTORY. On May 17, 1917, no advocate of preparedness could with confidence have forecasted the success of a com- pulsory-service law. There existed no mechanism for the enrollment or selection of individuals. The body politic Mii.s an inchoate mass of available but unor- ganized resource. The administrative history of the United States disclosed a consistent popular adherence to the ppinciple of voluntary enlistment if iiot a re- pudiation of the principle of selection or compulsory military service. It is true that,-during the Civil War, a modified conscription bill had passed the Congress and had been in effect for a period of two years, but the application of that law can scarcely be termed a popular success. It was softenetl and weakened by provisions authorizing the payment of bounties and the hiring of substitutes which practically made it a mcnns for adding inducements to volunteers. Its effect was persuasive rather than compulsory. It was destined to the fate of all halfway measures. It re- duced the city of Ncav York to a state of anarchy, and it was received throughout the Nation with an ill gi-ace of riot and protest. In practical result it contributed a compelled service from only 46,347 men out of 770,829 men drafted for service. With this concrete example, and with such abstract deductions as could be made fi'om our history, there were many who feared the total failure of the Selec- tive-Service Law which was enacted by Congress on May 18, 1917. The law was unequivocal in its terms. It boldly recited the military obligations of citizen- ship. It vested the President with the most plenary power of prescribing regulations which should strilce a balance between the industrial, agricultural, and eco- nomic need of the Nation on the one hand and the military need on the other, and should summon men for service in the place in which it should best suit the conunon good to call them. It was a measure of un- gucsscd significance and power. It flung a fair chal- lenge at the feet of the doubters, and the refutation of their assertion was nothing less than spectacular. The governors of Stat«s. the mayors of cities, and the officials of counties had been called upon to lend their aid in the accomplishment of registration, and. in the 18 days intervening between May IS, the day the law was approved, and June 5, the day the President had fixed as registration day, a gi'eat administrative machine was erected. This system comprised some 4,000 registration boards with over 12,0t* inoubors, employing a personnel of registrars and assistants to the number of 125,000. Between dawn and dark of one single day practically the entire male population of the United States within the age limits fixed by law for registration presented themselves at the enrollment booths with a registered result of nearly 10,000,000 names. The project had been so systematized that within 48 hours practically complete registration re- turns had been assembled by telegraph in Washington. The Selective-Service Law left the details of admin- istration to presidential regulation. The registration completed, it became necessary to provi«le a complete and somewhat intricate system of Selection Boards, to l^rescribe their procedure in hearing and resolving claims for exemption, and to cedify a complete set of rules under which the most sacred rights and, the grav- est obligations of registrants and their dependents were to be adjudicated. These b«ar«ls were consti- tuted and appointed and the regnlatiens were pub- lished and distributed by June 18. The intricate task of computing and allotting quotas and credits for voluntary enlistments was accomplished early in July. The remaining preliminary task was t* determine the order in which the 10,000,000 registrants were to be called to determine their availability for military service. This was accomplished on July 29 by a great central lottery in Washington, which fixed the order of call for the whole 10,000,000 names. This order determined, the boards proceeded promi^tly to call, to examine physically, and to consider claims for exemp- tion of a sufficient number of men to fill the fii-st national quota of 687,000 men. Moving under the jiress of an apparent great urgency with the intention of evolving the entire quota by the end of September, before which time it was then thought the cantonments would be ready to I receive the entire quota, the boards proceeded to :all < and examine over one and one-half million men. On EErOKT OF THE x'EOVOST MAESHAL GENERAL. July 30, the Arm}' assimilated the first selected man under the new plan, and by September 1, the date by which it had originally been called upon to produce the first 30 per cent of the initial draft, the Selective- Service System stood ready to deliver to the national cantonmciits 180,000 selected men. Thus in less than three months and one-half, the Nation had accepted and vigorously executed a com- pulsory-service law. The mechanism for the vast task of registration had been conjured from the uncoordi- nated political systems of the several States in a fort- night. The more compact organization for selection was erected in only a little more time, and the great siftir.g process was accomplished in season to furnish the men necessary for the formation of our armies long before the logistic preparation for their reception could be completed. The whole tale has been thus tersely told by way of introduction, and the expedition and smoothness with which the law was executed has been recounted for the sole purpose of emphasizing the significance of this remarkable demonstration of the flexibility, adapta- bility, and efficiency of our system of government and the devotion of our people. Here will be found a gigantic project in which success was staked not on reliance in the efficiency of a man, or an hierarchy of men, or, primarily, on a system. Here was a bold reliance on faith in a people. Most exacting duties were laid with perfect confidence on the officials of every locality in the Nation, from the governors of States to the registrars of elections, and upon private citizens of every condition, from men foremost in the industrial and political life of the Nation to those who had never before been called upon to participate in the functions of government. By all administrative tokens, the accomplishment of their task was magic, but the magic lay solely in this: At the President's call, all ranks of the Nation, reluctantly entering the war, nevertheless instantly responded to the first call of the Nation with a vigorous and unselfish cooperation that sub- merged all individual interest in a single endeavor toward the consummation of the national task. I take it that no great national project was ever at- tempted with so complete a reliance on the voluntary cooperation of citizens for its execution. Certainly no such burdensome and sacrificial statute had ever before been executed without a great hierarchy of officials. This law has been administered by civilians whose official relation lies only in 4he necessary powers with which they are vested by the President's designa- tion of them to perform the duties that are laid upon them. They have accomplished the task. They have made some mistakes. The system offers room for im- provement. But the great thing they were called upon to do they have done. The vaunted efficiency of ab- solutism of which the German Empire stands as the avatar can offer nothing to compare with it. It re- mains the ultimate test and proof of the intrinsic loolitical idea upon which American institutions of democracy and local self-government are based. It is the relation of this novel but successful experi- ment in government to which the following pages are addressed. II. ERECTING THE REGISTRATION SYSTEM. From the moment American participation in the world war became apparently inevitable the enactment of the Selective-Service Law was also inevitable, and at that moment the preliminary studies that resulted in the present Selective-Service System were instituted. The trend of continental military organization since the battle of Jena, and the inception of the junker idea of "the nation in arms" (not to mention the unprecedented military effectiveness of the German Empire in the present conflict), left no doi:bt that no intelligently directed nation could afford to enter the conflict with less than its entire strength, systematized, organized, and controlled for war. Such systematiza- tion is impossible under any other than the selective plan for raising armies. The thinking element of the Nation was perfectly aware of the truth of this propo- sition; and Germany had given such a demonstration of its effectiveness that little argument was necessary to support it in May of this year, and none is neces- sary to-day. If farms, factories, railroads, and in- dustries were not to be left crippled, if not ruined, by the indiscriminate volunteering of key and pivotal men, then, in the face of such an enemy as Germany, the total military effectiveness of tlie Nation woidd have been lessened rather than strengthened by the assembly of l.don.fiiii) \olunteers. On the nssnniptidn that the selective-service bill would become a law, therefore, the plans for the execu- tion of that law were formulated in very minute de- tail and were submitted to the Secretary of War for approval; and all the initial plans and much of the actual preparation for carrying them into execution had been made six weeks before the enactment of the law. Tlie only precedent was the execution of the Civil War draft act. and while this afforded emphatic warn- ings of wliat not to do, it was worth little as a guide. For the execution of the Civil War draft, the Nation v.-as divided into enrollment districts corresponding to the congressional districts. A complete Federal mili- tary machine for its administration was erected, with enrollment boards in every district and enrollment officers in every precinct. Two months were required for the appointment of the boards. The registration was not begun until these boards could be erected and four months were required to complete it. The enroll- KJ5P0RT OF THE PROVOST MARSHAL GENERAL, ing officers went from house to house in malring their canv.ass; and practice proved that they went at peril of their lives. Some were killed and many were injured. The enrollment was very incomplete and far from accurate. The Civil War plan was therefore very slow, very expensive, and not at all satisfactory. If it had anything to recommend it, it was the military con- trol and power behind it for enforcement. Study seemed to reveal, however, that perhaps this very aspect of it nuiy have had much to do with its un- popularity and lack of success. It seemed to advertise a lack of faith in popular support and participation. It was completely foreign to our intrinsic ideas of popular and local self-govci'mnent. It was centralized, slow, and cumbersome. If it were to bo followed there was no reason to anticipate a more speedy regiKtrution of our vastly increased and more wid-.-ly distributed population, and our other military preparations (with which the selection must necessarily synclu-onize) de- manded a veiy much greater rate of speed. It was apparent that the first task of preparation must be a registration of the millions of young men who would be subject to the law, and that nothing further could be attempted until the registration was complete. Standing ready at hand was the State, city, and county electoral machinery, enhanced by the signilictfnt circumstance that most State election regis- trations are promptly prepared for and are usually executed in a single day. It was computed that the most convenient number of persons to be carefully but swiftly selected under the jurisdiction of a single selec- tion board was about 3,000, and that this was nearly the average male population between the ages of 21 and 30 in a county. Considering that the county is the princiiDal minor unit of political admini&triition throughout the United Staffes, the plan of a collection of such convenient registration and selection units in each State, concentering about State headquarters, was very persuasive, and the added circumstance that such a plan was the perfect pattern of the normal l^eace-tirae administration of the Nation was com- pelling. It was distinctively an American plan. The arguments against its systemic soundness were only the stock arguments against the systeniir soundness for war purposes of the political structure of the Na- tion itself. It was often said, in the days of that planning, that, for the purposes of war, we lack the solidarity nnd compactness of such absolute govern- mental system, as that of Germany. On the other hand, there was the suggestion that the very centrali- zation and lack of opportunity for popular participa- tion might have been responsible for our unsatis- factory experience in 1863. Once the ]iliui had been decided upon, it became ap- parent Unit tlicre could bi' no equivocation in its exe- cution. The riiunty was selected as the typical work- ing unit. The conntv ornnnizations within each State were grouped in the larger administrative imits of the States themselves, and finally the State units were controlled from a central source in Washington. The plan itself is described in full in the following excerpt from a letter to the governors of the several Statcs.under date of April 23, 1917, nearly a mjuth before the enactment of the selective-service law : THE LETTER OF ANNOUNCEMENT TO THE GOVERNORS. The President flesirei; that I bring to your attention the fol- lowing considerations whicli Iio is not at present ready to give to tlie press: Pendin.i: Ic-islMtion coiifemptates calling ti> the colors a sufficient luniihtr a;' siniii;,' i,i.>n t« previde for the eoramon defense. It will )ic .ipji n' nt in you that no steps can be taken toward the acliKil niii ;iiTin-- of the selected array luitil, in the form of a reKistiMlion m' ;iil males of design;ited acre, there has l>een completed a must coiiipi'ehensive census of our resources of men. Notwithstanding differeaee of opinion that may exist as to other features of this legislation, no voice has yet contested the necessity for such an enr»lli«ent ; and we may confidently assume that the law w'iH carry a provision requiring all sftch persons to present then»selves ftr re,;;istra- tion at a day and place to lie named by Fu-esi«ieutial proclama- tion, under pain of penalty for failure to d» s». Wiiile enrollment is thus necessary, the undertaking it im- poses js very gi-eat. The macliinei-y f«r such a census must fa-st be created. In the Civil War a perieii of tw« and one- half months of preparation was necessary before a single name could be written in the rolls of available men. The prospect of such delay is disturbing. At the moment of tfce e«aetinent of a law levying new armies there ^ill be a wide demand for instiuu action; yet the enthusiasm and the potential emergy of our people must remain pent and poised while we await the com- pletion of the uninspiring and tedious pre!i»stnary of enroll- ment. If this delay can be avoided, it must be av»il be confronted witb a la--'; \vlio<;p .■.■l::iiiiral accompHshrrvarits would reqiiiro iiionUi^ of I .. .. .Aid aa enormous expenditure Of money, mid il is not an exlraviiganee to say that for the lack o? JJieu furnislied under the selective-service law we should be losfrtf? battles on the field of France sometime next spring while we sontinued to struggle with the constitution and organization of thes^ bpards. Second. The difficulty of centralization is not meehaifkal alone. The law we have to execute demands a .sacrifice. Under our dual form of government we Ii;iv(> ovorywliore, side by side, two systems, and, to a certain oxtcnl, two routers of interest, loyalty, obligation, and devotion. At the very begin- ning of our task we decided to adopt a method which was designed to link these two systems together in a combined pull in a single direction and to avoid sedulously any sug- gestion of putting them In opposition, or even of letting the State systems also serve by only standing and waiting. The vital, the truly tremendous value of this decision justi- fies itself more completely every day. There were two ways to take our young men from the States. One was to let the Federal Government go in and extract them, and the other was to let each State offer them. We adopted the latter method. The result of registration speaks for itself. The sys- tem is very efficient. Third. Study of the Civil War draft acts and the execution they received reveals very cle.niy tliat a centralized Federal system of enforcing such a sacrificiiil law as the one before us is n.'l i-fi' r]]\v ;n,il there can be little hesitancy in saying that the iiiii'i • ic i v^toni on which that draft was conducted re- sulted in ils piartical failure. The word "improper" is used in designating that system because it i.s believed that our entire political structure rests on the basic principle of local self-government, and that a system for the execution of a law imposing a direct and uni- versal burden which neglects to apply that principle just as far as it can be applied is an " improper " system f»r us. It is thought that at the completion ©f our work •f organiza- tion we should find a machine for the turning out of recruits in each State. When men are needetl. the governor of the State will be called upon by the Federal Government for the number of men required from bis St:ite and he will proceed to set the m.achine in operation and continue it until the neces- sary quota is furnished. That machine should consist of boards chosen from the residents of each locality who shall operate under the direction of the President and the super- vision of the governor in all functions save that of determining exemptions. In this latter function they will be under very direct Federal supervision and through the medium of the Fpderal district board. In elfect we shall have the same sort of executive machine that we had for the registration. The law is sseeuted in each locality normally by lo. nl ollkials ch«.sen froi« among the people upon whom tlio Imnlon falls. This is self-g»vernment; This is decentralization mid lliis places the State •rganiz.-itions in line with t!io I'oiloial organization working in the same direction with tlo s.iinc purpose and to the same end. In my opinion we oaii uoi ulTurd to do less than this. These considerations liave compelled the conclusion that wo must continue our pattern of " supervised decentralization " to the cud. Wo must therefore place upon the governor as muoli ' -I MHiiiy for the .selection of th« boards with which he li:i !■ V . t. :i it is po.ssible to place upon him. For I ;:.-,( roisoiis the governor of each State has been called upon to submit for the consideration of the President lists of persons whom the governor recommends for the constitution of these local boards. Normally these lists are c©«p©sed of local officials chosen hy the people themselves, but the governor has been allowed a latitude of discretion in departing from this ex officio personnel whenever in his discretion such departure is advisable. This is not only the .system of appointment, it is the system of administration that has been selected after full considera- tion and because it offers the swiftest and most effective execu- tion of the law, and seems to remove the consideration of par- tisan politics as far as it can be removed from the .selection and the action of these boards. At the completion of our organization we expect to find in each State a complete machine for the furnishing of that S title's share of the men necessary to the common defense. Upon a'nj" call the governor shall set this machine in action and continiie tP operate it until the State quota is full. In a word, it is nof proposed that the Federal Government s?.all go into the State as snch and extract men. It is proposed that BEPOET OF THE PROVOST MAESHAL GENERAL. 13 the State shall offer men. To this end the President has called upon the governors of the several States to nominate the personnel of the local boards from among local officials, or if considered best by the governor, from other citizens resi- dent in the respective areas over which those boards shall have jurisdiction. By reason of the ministerial character of the duties of these local boards, the matter of their selection was not so grave a thing as the next step in the organization of the Nation for the execution of the selective-service law. I refer to the constitution and organization of the boards for the Federal judicial districts within each of the several States. To district boards will be intru-sted the solution of one of the most vital problems of the war. Two thing are to be accomplished — to raise armies ; to maintain industries. As the war proceeds, more and more men will be required for the battle line, and yet there are certain Industries that must be maintained to the end. Any considerahle diminution of man power must interfere to some extent with industry. The diminution must be njade and hence it is self-evident that the problem is not absolutely to prevent interference with industry, for that is impossible; it is to reduce interference to a mini- mum. A balance must be struck aud maintained between the military aud the industrial needs of the Nation aud the neces- sary sacrifice must be distributed with scientific accuracy and in such a way as to accomplish both purposes of the Nation. The very statement of the problem demonstrates most forcibly that in making this economic balance it is the interest of tlie Nation solely that must he subserved; that the interest of in- dividuals or associations of individuals can not be considered as such, and indeed, can only benefit from the action of dis- trict boards where the individual interest happens to coincide with the interest of the Nation. Enough has been said to predicate a conclusion as to what the members of these boards ought to be and to leave evident without saying what they ought not to be. First. They must be men possessing mentality, experience, and information that will enable them to solve the very diffi- cult economical problem of striking a balance between military and industrial necessity. Second. They must be men of such stability, patriotism, and integrity as will insure the interests of the Nation against the urging of private claim. There is instantly suggested that to fill these requisites we must have representatives of the most important national in- dustries. Since district boards also sit as boards of review of the action of local boards aud must exercise a self-executing review over all such action and since action on claims of physi- cal disability will be a considerable matter of review, there must be a physician on each of these boards. For obvious rea- sons there should be one lawyer. The normal composition of these boards is five members. Where the number of cases for their consideration will be great, the membership must be increased proportionately by groups of five, each of such groups to comprise a division of the board composed of representatives of the same industries and professions as are to be found in the normal group. This composition of the normal board should be as follows : One member who is in close touch with the agricultural situa- tion of the district. One member who is in close touch with the industrial situa- tion of the district. Cue member who is in close touch with labor. One physician. One lawyer. In districts where there are no considerable industries other than agriculture or where there is no considerable agriculture, a representative of general business may be named instead of a representative of industry or of agi'iculture, as the case may be. The selective-service act lays upon the President the duty of creating and establishing these boards and appointing the mem- bers thereof. While tlie problem is one that arises from the necessity of the Nation, its resolution must affect each of the States very directly. The President has need, therefore, of your counsel and advice in this matter. He desires that you submit to him, as a field for his selection, a list of the names of men of your State who possess the requisite I have outlined and whom you can recommeiid for the high and solemn func- tions of these boards. Upon the conditions thus stated and the information herein contained you will be able to meet the grave responsibility that is being tendered you. The proper selection of members of these boards is one of the most vital necessities of the na- tional defense, since upon their motion equally depends the maintenance of the industries of the country and the selec- tion of the armies by which these industries and the whole Nation are to be defended. The matter is, therefore, essen- tially a war measure of defense. In the steps you have already taken to organize your State for war, you have created a council of defense. No doubt this council will be of great service to you in arriving at your decision. The President desires that you consider this as the bearing of the Nation's problem on the area aud the people within your State. He will view your recommendations as your resolution of that problem and will give them the most earnest and thoughtful consideration. The necessity for an early re- ceipt of your recommendation arises from the lu'gent demand of all circumstances that the organization of the country for the execution of the selective-service law shall be completed at the earliest practicable moment. The adjustment to the selection of the administra- tive mechanism ah-eady erected for the registration was of subsidiary importance to the task that now confronted the office of the Provost Marshal General — the formulation of the regulations that should gov- ern the selection. Ten million men were to be affected, and the execu- tion of the Selective-Service Law was certain to in- vade, with more or less direct effect, practically every American home. In the most sacred sentiment of our family life, the execution of the law was to have a very direct bearing, and in the more practical eco- nomical aspect a discriminating administration was of vital importance. The immediate and emergent problem was to make the withdrawal in such a way as to wreak the least disturbance. The obvious way to accomplish tliis was so to frame the regulations that, from the whole 10,000,000 registrants rendered liable to military ser- vice, we should skim away the precise number on the first draft that could be spared with the least inter- ference with our varied industries. Upon the slight- est reflection, the proposition demonstrates itself that to accomplish this result an examination into the cir- cumstances of each of the 10,000,000 registrants would be necessary. Under the conditions of the problem as they were then presented, this was obviously im- possible. The responsibility was upon the office of the Provost Mai'shal General to produce men as rap- idly as they could be accommodated and absorbed by the Army; and the information then furnished 14 EEPOET OF THE PROVOST MARSHAL GENERAL. by the War Department was to the effect that the Army would be prepared to receive a first call of over half a million men during the month of Sep- tember, 1917. To inquire with discriminating delib- eration into the cases of 10,000,000 registrants within that time was simply out of the question. Eeserving, therefore, the right to make other dis- positions as soon as it could possibly be done, the problem was to evolve an expedient stop-gap which should produce the first contingent within the time allowed. A plan was therefore formulated which, while protecting the necessary individuals engaged in industi'y and agriculture, under regulations imposing upon no considerable enterprise a dangerous burden, would be stringent enough to evolve the necessary contingent by September 1. The first draft was for 687,000 men; and, after the most careful computation, it was estimated that about 3,000,000 cases could be examined under the system planned within the time at our disposal. The pi'oblem then was to gauge the regulations to these conditions, and to evolve a set of rules just stringent enough to select 687,000 men from among the 3,000,000 who stood earliest in the order of liability. Even under such a resolution as this, the preparation of regulations which could be capable of administra- tion by men, not necessarily skilled in legal formalism, Avas an intricate and difficult task. The formulation of these regulations along the lines just indicated was undertaken and accomplished with the utmost expedi- tion possible. Such of them as governed the steps preliminary to the actual selection were promulgated early in June, by separate pamphlets, to the newly con- stituted selection boards, and the final approved vol- ume was disseminated on the last day of that month. On that date the process of selection was instituted througliout continental and contiguous United States. THE DRAWING OF ORDER NUMBERS. One of the most difficult tasks that always attends a selection from a mass of men whose obligation before the law are all equal was the determination of the order of liability to examination and selection. The problem is not new. History abounds with examples. Decimation, or the arbitrary selection of every tenth man, is a not infrequent method; but there is an ata- vistic appeal in the wager of hazard which springs pei'haps from some lurking idea of divine interven- tion in the appeal to chance. The problem was solved during the Civil War period by local application of the jury-wheel system, but charges of manipulation and fraud were at that period plentiful. It was felt that a different method should be adopted in the in- stant case, and that, if one central lottery in Washing- ton could be fairly arranged under circumstances ad- mitting of no suggestion of favoritism, the effect would be beneficial. The circumstances were readily adaptable to the idea. Each registration card deposited with each local board was numbered in a separate series for each board, and this afforded an opportunity for a selection from among many kinds of drawing. With an idea of pre- venting possible manipulation, it had been prescribed that the cards for each board should be numbered without regard to alphsbetical arrangement of names of registrants. It was thought that this requirement would have resulted in so thorough a shuffling that a single drawing of the numbers from 1 to 1,000 would result in an order of recurrence of integers, in num- bers of less than three figures, such that the numbers so drawn could be applied to the cards within the jurisdiction of any board in such a way as to give an absolutely fair sequence of liability. Four sejJarate plans for determining order of lia- bility had been worked out in their uttermost detail, and, while it had been decided to adopt the single drawing of 1,000 numbers, three other jjlans were on file. The details of the proposed plan of drawing were nevertheless held secret, not because any fraudu- lent manipulation was possible, but to guard against even a suggestion of such a po.ssibility. On the eve of the national drawing, however, it was discovered that in one State (under instructions that easily admitted of the unintended construction placed upon them) numbers had been assigned to cards in absolute sequence in precincts and districts within the jurisdiction of each local board, with a possible result that a central drawing of 1,000 numbers would have effected a localization of the draft in single voting precincts to the exclusion of other precincts within the jurisdiction of the same local board. This required a change in the draft plan ovei-night. Under the precautions that had been taken it was necessary only to advert to one of the other fidly prepared plans, so that, without the slightest delay or disturbance, a drawing was held of numbers corre- sponding to the highest sequence of numbers within the jurisdiction of any local board, viz, 10,500 num- bers. These numbers Avere stamped on slips of paper. To prevent confusion each slip of paper was inclosed in a black capsule, and the 10,000 capsules were placed indiscriminately in a large glass bowl and thoroughly mixed with a ladle. The numbers were then drawn out publicly, one at a time, by blindfolded men, siDccially selected from among students at the various universities. The order in which any number was drawn from the bowl was recorded by six tallymen, and determined the relative order of liability of the man whose card bore that number in the sequences in which numbers had previously been assigned to the registration cards within the jurisdiction of each local board. The drawing took place on Friday, July 20, in the public hearings room of the Senate Office Building. EEPORT OF a?HE PEOVOST MARSHAL GENERAL. 15 The first number, 258, was drawn by the Secretary of War. Aiid it is interesting to note that one of the holders of that number was, before the end of the month — July — inducted into the military service of the United States and had reported for military duty at Washington Barracks. As soon as the order of liability had been thus de- termined each of the 4,557 local boards began, most assiduously, the task of evolving their quotas of se- lected men under the hurriedly prepared selection rules and regulations. V. APPOETIONMENT OF ttTJOTAS AND ALLOCATION OF CREDITS. Meantime the process of calculation and apportion- ment of quotas had been proceeding. 1. Statutory rule. — The selective-service act, after empowering the President to raise by draft certain military forces enumerated in the act, provides: Sec. 2. * * * Such draft « * * shall take place and be maintained under such regulations as the President may prescribe not inconsistent with the terms of this act. Quotas for the several States, Territories, and the District of Colum- bia, or subdivisions tliereof, shall be determined in propor- tion to the population thereof, and credit shall be given to any State, Territory, district, or subdivision thereof, for the num- ber of men who were in the military service of the United States as members of the National Guard on April first, nine- teen hundred and seventeen, or who have since said date entered the military service of the United States from any such State, Territory, district, or subdivision, either as mem- bers of the Regular Army or the National Guard. • * * Sec. 4. * * * Notwithstanding * * * exemptions * * *, each State, Territory, and the District of Columbia shall be required to supply its quota in the proportion that its popula- tion bears to the total population of the United States. The apportionment of quotas and credits was de- termined in accordaince with regulations governing the apportionment of quotas and credits prescribed by the President on July 5, 1917, by virtue of authority yested in him by the terms of the selective-service act. 2. Calculation of national total to he raised. — For the iDurpose of apportioning quotas to the States and Territories and the District of Columbia there was added to the total number of men 687,000, to be raised by the first draft under the selective-service act; the further mimber of 465,985 thus composed: (a) 164,292 men who were in the military service of the United States as members of the National Guard on April 1, 1917; (h) 183,719 men who entered the military service of the United States as members of the National Guard during the period from April 2 to June 30, 1917, both dates inclusive; and (c) 117,974 men who entered the military service of the United States as members of the Regular Army during the period from April 2 to June 30, 1917, both dates inclusive, making 1,152,985 in all. This addition was necessary in order to secure the number to be raised as fixed in the President's call. If only the 687,000 had been treated as the gross quota, and the credits of 465,985 had then been de- ducted from this total, the number raised would have been only 221,015, and a further draft would then have been necessary for raising the 465,985 lacking. Hence this number — 465,985 — was first added to the 687,000 to give the gross quota ; then, upon apportion- ing this gross quota among the jurisdictions, pur- suant to the statute, and deducting the credits for each jurisdiction from its gross quota, the net quota of all jurisdictions thus obtained -would, when added to- gether, produce the number required to be raised, viz, 687,000. 3. Allocations of credits.— The credits above enum- erated included enlisted men only. Class (a) in- cluded and was limited to all men who on April 1, 1917, were enlisted in National Guard organizations then recognized by the Militia Bureau of the War Department; and class (&) included and was limited to all men who during the period of April 2 to June 30, 1917, both dates inclusive, enlisted in National Guard organizations recognized by said bureau or who during that period became enlisted national guards- men as members of new units recognized during the period by the bureau. Each of these classes in- cluded all enlisted men within the description, irre- spective of whether they were actively in Federal serv- ice or only subject as national guardsmen to be drafted into such service. It is to be noted that in apportioning quotas and credits no credit was given for enlistments in the naval service, in the Marine Corps, in the Federal Reserve Corps, or in the National Guard Reserves. This was due to the fact that the statutory provision for the allowance of credits was limited to credits based upon enlisted membership in the National Guard on April 1 and upon enlistments in the National Guard and the Regular Army after April 1. The aggregate number of men of classes (a) and (&) from each State and Territory and the District of Columbia was determined by the Chief of the Militia Bureau of the War Department; and the aggregate number of men of class (c) from each State and Ter- ritory and the District of Columbia was determined by the Provost Marshal General from information supplied by The Adjutant General of the Army. The sum of these items for any jurisdiction was its gross credit. The average percentage of credit for such enlist- ments for the United States was 40.42 per cent on the national gross quota to be raised under the President's call. The percentage of enlistment credits to gross quota for the several States is shown in Appendix Table A. The State showing the highest percentage was Oregon; the State showing the lowest percentage was Oklahoma; of the Territories Hawaii figured as the highest and Porto Rico as the lowest. Enlistments Chakt A. RATIO OF ENLISTMENT CREDITS TO GROSS QUOTA. DEGREES HAWAII STATES AB NATIONAL AV t HAWAII S OREeON a DIST. 0? COL. 5 HEW HAMPSHIRE e WYOMIHS 7 VERMOMT e RHODE ISLAND 9 KANSAS 10 SOUTH DAKOTA 11 WISCONSIN 12 DELAWARE 13 IDAHO 14 MASSACHUSETTS 15 UTAH IS GOLOfJABO 17 IOWA 18 MARYLAND 19 HISSOURI 20 NEW YORK 21 WASMIMSTOK ■22 HEW JERSEY 23 OHIO 24 COtJHECTIUCT 25 IHBIAHA 2fr' ARKANSAS 27 NEBRASKA UNITES STATES OVE ERAGE lOWAMD.MO Idf.VA.PA.FLA.X TEX.ALA.KY.VA.J 35f NEV.LA. STATES BELOW nONAL AVERAGE UNITED STATES 40.42 28 NEW MEXICO 40.37 29 WEST VIRGINIA 38.53 30 PENNSYLVANIA 37.90 31 FLORIDA 37 37, 32 TEXAS ,36.34 33 ALABAMA 35.92 34 KENTUCKY 35.56 3S VIRSINiA 35.22 36 ILLINOIS 34.52 37 TENNESSEfi 34.2S 38 MISSISSIPPI 34.09 39 CALIFORNIA 33.76 40 SOUTH CAROLINA 33.27 41 SEORGIA i32.43 42 NORTH CAROLINA 31.81 43 NOhTH DAKOTA 31.69 44 MINNESOTA 31.51 45 MICHIGAN, 30.88 46 NEVADA 36.62 47 LOUISIANA 26.33 48 MONTANA 24.30 49 ARIZONA 22.28 SO OKLAHOMA 21.78 SI ALASKA 28.30 62 P9RT0 RIC9 4.63 OREGON MAIKE N.H. R.I. KANS. S.DAK. /wis. DEL. IDAHO IMASS.UTAH COLO. N.Y. WASH. N.J. OHIO CONN. IND. ARK. NEBR. UNITED STATES MEX. All. TEHN. MISS. CAL.S.C. IGA.N.C. N.DAK. MiNN. MiCH. MONT. ARIZ. OKLA. PORTO RICO fFor States printed in groups, reading left to right gi tlie douuward scqufnco.l EEPORT OF THE riiOVOST MARSHAL GENERAL. 17 COMMUNITIES HAVING NO NET QUOTA. The following Banner Communities filled their entire gross quota by voluntary enlistments, and therefore did not need to contribute any men under the Selective Service Act, as shown in Appendix Table 45 : California: Alpine County, Tehama County. Colorado: Summit Coimty. Florida: Franklin County, Osceola County. Idaho: Boise, Bonner County, Canyon County, Idaho County, Payette Coimty, Washington County. Illinois: Danville. Indiana: White County. Iowa: Cedar Rapids, Council Bluffs, Hamilton County, Page County, Story County. Kansas: Allen County^ Chase County, Dougla* County, Ford Count}-, Kearny County, Montgom- ery County, Ottawa, Topeka, Wichita, Woodson County, Wyandotte County. Kentucky: Breathitt County, Lee County. Maine: Cumberland; Kennebec; Oxford County; Portland. Mississippi: Forrest County, George County, Greene County, Jackson County, Jackson (city). Pearl River County, Yalobusha County. Missouri: Holt County, Howell County, Laclede County. Nebraska: Hamilton County. New Mexico: Eddy County, Luna County. New York: Schenectady County. North Carolina: New Hanover County. North Dakota: Rolette County. Ohio: Adams County, GaUia Comity, Jackson County, Union County, Warren County, Zancsville (city). Oregon: Benton Coimty, Coos County, Crook ('ounty, Douglas County, Hood River County, Jackson County, Josephine County, Lane County, Linn County, Marion County, Multnomali County, Polk County, Portland, Tillamook County, Yamhill County. Pennsylvania: Harrisburg, Lancaster. Rhode Island: Barrington. South Carolina: Union County. South Dakota: Buffalo County, Clark County, Cod- dington County, Davison County, Hughes County, Jackson County, Marshall County, Miner County, Minnehaha County, Moody County, Stanley County, Todd Comity. Tennessee: Carter County, Cumberland County, Mc- Miun County. Texas: Austin, Donley County, Foard Comity, Karnes County, Kendall County, Kerr County, Potter County, Uvalde County, Waco, Willacy County. A^'ekmont: Windham County. Virginia: Lynchburg. West Virginia: Huntington, Preston County, Wood County. Wisconsin: Douglas County, Forest County, Green Bay, Lincoln County, Oneida County, Oshkosh, Price County, Washburn County. Wyoming: Big Horn County, Crook County, Fremont County, Hot Springs County, Pai-k County, Platto County, Uinta County. RATIO OF ENLISTMENT CREDITS TO GROSS QUOTA, BY STATES. 18 EEPORT OF THE PEOVOST MAKSHAL GENERAL, ENtlSTMENTS CHART B. RATIO OP ACTUAL ENLISTMENT TO GROSS QUOTA. DEQREES 185] Oregon- 175^ 165 1 155 1 145 1 135' I25I 115^ District of Columbia- Wyoming— Rhode Island- Colorado— Vermont- Missouri— Iowa 1 Maryland — Delaware/ California— New York \ Minnesota — Wisconsin] 85t ^5 Georgia— North Dakota- North Carolina— Arizona— Virginia- rl80 !t70 |t50 'l40 130 120 -Washington— Maine — New Hampshire }80 /Massachusetts — Idaho — Nebraska ISouth Dakota — Kansas /Pennsylvania — Ohio ~iCo - -- \Connecticut— Montana -{ Michigan— Tennessee— West Virginia Arkansas— Kentucky— Alabama —Louisiana— Mississippi — Oklahoma— South Carolina [For States printed in groups, reading left to right gives the downward sequence.] KEi'OET OF THE PROVOST MARSHAL GENERAL. 19 But it is to be remembered that in several respects the percentage of enlistment credits, figured accord- ing to the statutory mandate, ignores a number of important elements which should be taken into con- sideration in estimating at their true level the respec- tive zeal of the several communities in making their contributions of men to the national cause without \."aiting the operation of the selective service law. In the first place, the conditions aiJecting the credits to be given for National Guard enlistments were abnor- mal in some localities; for example, in Hawaii abnor- mal conditions increased the credits and in Porto Rico abnormal conditions diminished the credits ; moreover, in several of the States numei'ous analogous considera- tions, too detailed to permit of elaboration in this place, affected the credits given. Furthermore, the statutory credits did not include enlistments in any branch of the Naval Service, nor enlistments in any blanch of the Army since June 30, nor enlistments at au}' time in the ilarine Corps, the Officers' Eeserve Corps, or the National Guard Reserves. In order, therefore, to set forth with more approximate accu- racy, the relative actual contributions, in men, of the several States, Appendix Table B shows the per- centages of such actual contributions, reckoned on the same original gross quota. From this Table B it ap- pears that the State having the highest percentage of actual contributions was Oregon; the lowest was South Carolina. 4. Appo)'tion7nent of State quota. — The number of rnen required of each State or Territory or the District of Columbia as its share, proportionate to population, of the national total, has been laiowh as its (/ross quota; and the number of men required of each such State, Territory, or District, after deducting the credits for men in classes {a), (6), and {c). has been known as its net quota. The Federal apportionment was made on July 12, 1917. This date, or one substantially neitlier earlier nor later was necessarily taken. No earlier date was needful or feasible, because the local boards were not fiilly organized and equipped for work, throughout tlie country, until the end of June. No later date was possible, because the boards could not proceed to raise the required men until they were informed how many men were to be raised by each, and they could not be informed until the net quota had been definitely and finally fixed by subtracting credits from gross quota. Hence, the date of June 30 was taken as the last day on which to allow (on this draft) the credits for enlist- ments. After a brief time needed for receiving and tabulating the reports of enlistments, the calcidation was made. Thus it was that the earliest date on which the apportionment could be made was July 12, and no change of the State quota was needful or feasible after that date. A further time, however, was re- quired for the calculation, by the governors, of the ai^portionment of the State and Territorial quotas among the several counties and cities. When this process had been completed, and not feasibly until ththe Commissioners of the District of Columbia, acting for and by direction of the President, apportioned the draft Avithin their re- spective jurisdictions. The governor of each State and Territory first allocated to cities of 30,000 popu- lation or over, and to comities exclusive of such cities, the credit due each sucli county and city on account of enlisted membership in the National Guard, and the Provost Marshal General furnished the governor of each State and Territory a statement, based upon in- formation supplied by The Adjutant General of the Army, of the credit due each such city and county on account of enlistments in the Regular Army. Each governor then apportioned the gross quota, less any adjustment determined by the Federal apportionment, for the State or Territory to cities of 30,000 popula- tion or over, and to counties exclusive of such cities, in proportion to population, as determined by the gov- ernor. He then determined the net quota for each city or county by deducting from the gross quota 20 KEPOET OF THE PHOVOST MARSHAL GENERAL. thereof the gross credit to which it was entitled. An adJDstjTient, simihvr to the one mentioned above as having been made by tlie Federal authorities, was made for the several counties and cities in the case of any State or Territory in which the gi'oss credit of one or more cities of 30,000 population or over, or one or more counties exclusive of such cities, exceeded the gross quota thereof.^ The new city and county quota being thus reached, the governor of each State and Territory and the Com- missioners of the District of Columbia, as a final step in the apportionment, where a county or city had more than one local board apportioned among the several local board jurisdictions in proportion to population as determined by the governor or the commissioners, the net quota of sucli county or city. 6. Estimates of ■po-pulatlon xvithin the States. — A tentative draft of the regulations governing the ap- portionment of quotas and credits had been sent to all governors on June 15 and their study and suggestion invited. Soon thereafter a number of governors made inquiry as to whether estimates of poptilation of counties and cities might not be furnished by the Cen- sus Bureau to aid them in determining population for apportionment purposes. Pursuant to these sug- gestions the Census Bureau was requested to furnish the estimates desired, which were published in Form 18, P. M. G. O., as of date July 1, 1917. The gov- ernors were, however, not bound by these estimates in ■ determining the population, for apportionment pur- poses, of the respective counties, cities, and local board jurisdictions within their respective States and Terri- tories, but were at liberty to make use of the estimates and any other information regarded by them as re- liable in arriving at the necessary determination i-e- sjiecting population. 7. No gross quota helow counties and cities. — The ultimate units considered in apportioning gross quotas and in allocating credits where cities of 30,000 popu- lation or over and counties ex:clusive of such cities; but the ultimate units considered in ai^portioning net quotas were local board jurisdictions. This plan of apportioning quotas and allocating credits was adopted after very careful consideration of the law and the administrative i^hases of the problem. Very few suggestions looking to a modification of the plan, which was embodied in the tentative regulations x-e- ferred to in the preceding paragrajih, were received from governors in response to the invitation addressed to them. Careful examination of the very limited number of suggestions which contemplated making a unit inferior to the city or county the ultimate unit for the allocation of credits led to the conclusion that ' The figures of gi'oss and net quota for all communities are printed as Appendix Table 45, any such plan involved administrative difficulties and delays and probable inequities which forbade its adop- tion. The fact that the net quota could not possibly be cal- culated till early in July led to certain unavoidable consequences affecting a large number of cities and counties. As the registration had to be the first stage in the administration of the law, and the local board areas for registration had to be defined according to population (30,000 or more) under the statutory re- quirements, these areas were defined according to the best estimate of pojoulation then available. Otherwise the organization could not have proceeded. In July, however, when the apportionment of quota was made, more accurate estimates of population, revised in the light of the registration figiu-es of June 5, became available. In the case of some cities and counties their population was found to be greater than before esti- mated; in others, less. If, by the new estimates, a city formerly estimated at less was now found to have more than 30,000 population, it now received an independent local board (pursuant to sec. 4 of the act), and its net quota was apportioned on such basis of population. Nevertheless, inasmuch as all enlistments proceeding during April, May, and Jime had been reckoned and credited on the basis of the original subdivision, such enlistment credits had to be credited in mass to the county at large of which such city had figured as ^ part in the original organization. Thus, though its en- listments might have been relatively large, it received no independent credits for them apart from its frac- tional share of the gross county credits, while its net quota debit was reckoned on the basis of its own ]Jopu- lation as an independent unit. Through not always perceiving the total impossi- bility of avoiding this occasional result, a few commu- nities experienced dissatisfaction. Nevertheless, the patriotic sj^irit which had supplied such an overshare of enlistments must have sufficed to content them with the glorious distinction of surpassing other communi- ties in the sacrifice made to a noble and national cause. And, after all is said and done, the niunber and kind of sacrifices and contributions voluntarily made in other ways were so enonnous throughout the country that no communitj', in the last analysis, would be willing to have its patriotism measured solely by the number of enlistments. 8. Aliens. — ^The iirovisions of the selective-service act requiring the apportionment of quotas in pro- portion to population are parallel to provisions re- lating to the same subject in the draft legislation of 1863. As soon as the estunates of population made by the Census Bureau had been received, it began to be apparent that the rule of the selective-service act, which based the apportionment of quotas on tot^il pop- ulation and yet draw the draft quotas from citizens and REPORT OF THE PROVQgT MARSHAL GENERAL. 21 declarants only, would operate quite differently upon communities having largely differing percentages of aliens in their population. In certain local board jur- isdictions, in which the element of alien population exceeded 30 per cent of the total, the burden placed upon the citizen population was very great. The matter received the attention of the military committees of Congress, and an effort was made to find a more equitable rule for the apportionment of quotas. Two propositions were considered: One, to base quotas upon the registration; and another to base quotas upon the citizen population. After some- what extended consideration both were rejected. The first was rejected for the I'eason that in so far as the distribution of the burden of the draft under that rule would differ from the distribution according to the population it would serve to require communities in which the registration had been most complete to furnish the largest proportion of men for the Ami}' and to permit communities in which for any reason the registration had been incomplete to profit in- dividually and locally by sending into the service a smaller proportion of men. The second was rejected for the reason that the application of its basic prin- ciple would serve to make the economic disturbances due to the withdrawal from industrial life of men of military age increase in proportion to the citizen population of the communitj'. For example, if in two communities of equal pop- ulation the citizen population of one were 100 per cent of the whole and in the other only 50 per cent, the remainder being composed of aliens, the two communi- ties, though equal in population, in resources, in industries, and in need of the labor, the efforts, and the enterprise of men of military age, would fall under a very unequal tax upon their man jJower. The all- citizen community would be required to furnish twice us many men as the half -citizen, half-alien community. The unfairness and the undesirability from an eco- nomic point of view of such a system required no dem- onstration. The result of the consideration and discussion of the apportionment of quotas in the earlier stages of the execution of the selective-service act was to leave the legislation in its original form, and to lead to the pro- mulgation of regulations which, while based upon broad principles of selection, were designed to synchronize the furnishing of men with the military needs of the country and the readiness of the AVar Dei:ftirtment to receive recruits. In the meantime the entire sub- ject has been receiving careful consideration and close study, and this office does not despair of being able, in the light of the classification now under way and in the light of treaties now being negotiated, to suggest a solution in the form of a joint resolution which, if enacted, would serve not only to distribute the next draft equitably but also to rectify earlier inequities. VI. THE SELECTION. Quotas having been apportioned, regulations and instructions required each local board to call before the board for physical examination, in the order of their liability, a sufficient number of registrants to procure about half the first quota of the board. Two hundred per cent of the quota was computed to be the number necessary to this end. Under ideal conditions and with a perfectly trained and instructed personnel, it would have been advis- able to make the selection a matter in which the Gov- ernment should be the sole party in interest. Under this plan, which was strongly urged by men whose opinion was entitled to respect, there would have been no such thing as an "exemption claim." The boards would have called each registrant in turn and forthwith entered an inquisitional procedure to deter- mine whether the registrant should be called for serv- ice or continued at home. This was, in the opinion of this office, impracticable. While the principle was deduced that no exemption authorized in the selective- service law was intended for the direct benefit of an individual and that every such exemption was for the sole benefit of the (government, the administrative problem required a short, simple, and effective mech- anism for bringing pertinent circumstances to the at- tention of the examiners; and uniformity of decision was possible only by a crystallized set of rules under which the boards could act. It was therefore provided that each registrant must present a claim for exemption, under the burden of substantiation of its merits. Seven da3's after notice to the registrant that he had been called for pliysical examination was prescribed as the time within which the claim must be presented, and in the absence of claim the registrant was deemed to have waived his right to claim exemption, subject to the power of the board to grant an extension of time. The procedure was necessarily swift, but every reasonable opportu- nity was given for the filing of claims. Every case presented to the local board was required to be certified to the district board either as exempted or held for service by the local board. Within five days after a case had been certified to the district board the reg- istrant could make his original claim on the ground of engagement in industry or agriculture before the district board, or he could, within 10 days after such certification, appeal from decision of tho local board adverse to his claim before the latter. By this method the number of cases coming before the district board was reduced by the number of cases in which a claim for exemption on the ground of en- gagement in industry or agriculture was rendered un- necessary because an exemption had already been granted on dependenej' 'or some other ground within the jurisdiction of the local board. 22 P.EPORT OF THE rEOVOBT MARSHAL GENEE-AL. Coir.cidcntally with the erection of the selective- service system, the War Department was moving with great expedition to erect the 16 National Army can- tonments which were to house the first contingent and to provide the necessary supplies of clothing and equipment. On August 8 the War Department di- rected the Provost Marshal General to furnish 30 per cent of the first draft on September 1, 30 per cent on September 15. 30 per cent on September 30, and 15 per cent as soon after September 30 as prac- ticable. The governors of all States were informed of this requirement, and on August 13 called upon for spe- cific reports as to whether they would be able to fill their quotas on this very expeditious schedule. Administrative history offers few instances of such unselfish and patriotic devotion or of such efficiency, in a newly erected and untried sy.stem, as was dis- jilayed by members of local and district boards in the month of August. Inspired by the appeal that had been made to them, based on the apparent instant need of the Army, the members of these boards addressed themselves to the task before them with absolute self- abnegalion. Working from early morning until the late hours of the night, and in very large measure without claiming any compensation for their labors, the 4,557 local boards had, between July 20 and August 25, heard and disposed of almost 1,000,000 cases, or an average of 70 cases by each board each day. And they had produced the required result. Before Sep- tember 1 reports had been received in this office that the States were ready to furnish their quotas accord- ing to the schedule originally prescribed by the War Department. Unexpected delays in the erection of camps and the accumulation of .supplies caused such deferments of the original call that at the date of this report only 76 per cent of the first quota has been called to camp. This delay was unfortunate in its effect upon men who. having been selected for military .service and notified that thej^ might be called for instant duty, under the schedule as above described, had made ar- rangements to sever their civil connection at about the dates indicated for their final call. But this effect can not be imputed to the selective-service system. The most difficult problem of selection for the local boards was raised by the question of dependency, and especially in its relation to married men of draf table age. There had been some very significant debate in the Senate, on consideration of the bill, as to whether married men should be exempted from the first draft as such, or whether the determinative principle should be dependency, as it had been agreed that it should be in all other relationships. An amendment exempting married men as such was rejected by the Senate on the direct issue that there was' no equity in excusing a married man and necessarily sending a single man to the battle front in his place when no condition of de- pendency of the wife existed in fact. There is much to be said on both sides of this question, but it was for this office to execute the law and not to debate it. It may not be amiss to remark, however, that the net result of the provision was to extract from the field of persons who had no claim of exemption other than the fact that they were married, 103,115. And of the 1,294,830 persons discharged on all possible grounds of exemption, 748,762, or 58 per cent, were discharged on the ground of dependency accruing from marriage. There were 1,500,056 married per-_^ sons called, and only 163,115, or less than 11 per cent, chosen. The question of actual dependency was left to the boards to determine. It can hardly be said that local boards composed of the neighbors of men to be taken for military sei-vice were not the best conceivable tri- bimals to weigh these questions of dependencj', or that they could not be relied upon both to protect the Gov- ernment from the insistence of selfish and thoughtless claimants on the one hand, and to treat each case of substantial merit with intelligent and sympathetic con- sideration on the other. In by far the majorit]' of boards this result av as attained, but in a vei-y few in- stances, such an imcompromising view of the regula- tions and the rulings issued in aid thei'eof was taken that some married men were selected, leaving wives and even children in distress. It must be recognized that there were very great difficulties in deciding individual cases. A soldier"? pay is $30 a month. The provisions of the Avar risk insurance law make it easily possible for an American soldier to allot for his family during his absence a sum subst'antially in excess of this monthly pay. In many cases, especially among tenant farmers in certain Southern States and among the poorer classes in large cities this is a greater contribution than the registrant normally makes to the support of his family; and considering the insiu-ance feature of the laAv, it is a much more certain and infallible income than could be obtained from any other source. In .such a case it was impossible to arrive at A fair conclusion that there was a dependency on the labor of the registrant for sup- port. Very early in the execution of the laAv the specific question was put to this office: "Where the parents of the registrant, or of his wife, or both, are ready, able, an*! \\ illing to undertake the support of the wife duriiii;- I he alisciire of the registrant, can the Avife be considered a- mainly dependent on the labor of the registrant for sujiport ?'' It is an extremely dangerous thing to attempt (o guide the discretion of so large a collection of tribunals as the Selective-Service System by abstract rulings on hypothetical questions. At the time this question Avas propounded reports from the various governors were rather alarming, since it Avas REPORT OF THE PROVOST MARSHAL GENERAL. 23 stated that over 70 per cent of registrants were claim- ing exemption on the ground of dependency. A con- siderable class of cases had been brought to the atten- tion of this oflice, in which men who had ncvor really supported their vdves, but who were, in fact, depend- ent on their own parents or the parents of their wives, were claiming exemption on the gi'ound that their wives were " mainly dependent on their daily labor for support." Eequests for rulings on these two classes of cases became so insistent that it was ap- parent that without some expression of a general rule, decisions by the boards in the different parts of the country would present an uniformity that would seri- ously affect the even execution of the law. On August 8, therefore, a ruling was made that in that class of cases where the registrant, as a matter of fact, was not.dependent upon himself, and the parents of the registrant or of his wife were ready, able, and willing to undertake the support of the wife during the absence of the husband, the boards would be justi- fied in finding tl«it such a registrant had not a good claim for exemption on the ground of the dependency of his wife. This ruling did not work well. The few boards that had been prone to hold married men for servica in the absence of the most unequivocal circumstances of dependency took the ruling as authority to look into the material wealth of the parents of the husband or of the wife. Regardless of readiness and willingness, regardless of whether or not the wife had in the past been actually dependent on the labor of the husband for support, these boards held some married men for service wherever it appeared to them that, rather than let the wife suffer, the parents would undertake her sup})ort during the absence of the husband. As soon as this condition developed, attention of the boards was called to the error on August 27, and the district boards were cautioned to scan cases before them on appeal to correct such eri'ors. On Septem- ber 27 local boards were instructed to reopen and re- consider cases in which such erroneous action had been taken, even though the registrant might have been in- ducted into military service in the meantime. A period of 47 days was allowed for the correction of these errors in the cases of men inducted into military service, and within that period most of such cases were, and all of them .should have been, corrected. Notwithstanding the conditions with which it had been guarded, this authority was pressed upon many boards to obtain a rehearing in cases in which no error had. been committed and in which there was no merit. The reopening of unuieritorious cases reached a mag- nitude that began to embarrass the orderly raising and training of the National Army. On November 13, therefore, the authority to reopen cases of registrants who had already been inducted into the military serv- ice and sent to a mobilization camp was withdrawn. Ample time had elapsed to correct all cases decided before the errors of the boards had been discovered and rectified, and there was no reason to reopen cases decided after that time. It was still provided, how- ever, that, in cases alleged to be of special merit or hardship, the commanding officer of the mobilization camp to which the registrant had been sent for service should consider such circumstances, and, if he found the case to be of merit, that he should discharge the induct from the Army under the plenary authority of the Secretary of War to grant such discharges to any enlisted man. As a matter of law, after the boards had passed upon the merits of a case and inducted the registrant into military service the boards were with- out further authority m the case, and the reopening by the boards of cases of men already so inducted and their findings thereon had been advisory merely, since such action had no effect, ex proprio vigore, to effect a discharge from military service. The actual discharge had been consummated in every case by the command- ing officer. The new procedure has been found just and effective. KESTILTS OF THE SELECTION. The detailed statistics of the selection are reserved for Part II of this report, but the narrative report re- quires some recapitulation of them. ^ --- Of the 9,586,508 registrants enrolled on .June f>;J} 3,082,9'19 have been called and examined by the boards^ and of this latter figure 1,057,363 were certified for military service. The first call was for 687,000 men only, but, answering an insistent demand of regis- trants to have their cases resolved and as a measure of precaution against an immediate future draft, many boards continued to examine men thus in excess of their quotas. Under the regulations men called to report to their local boards for examination who failed to appear and make claims for exemption were regarded as having waived the right to make such claims and were, after due notice, inducted into military service and there- after treated as delinquent from such service. After registration many young registrants who were eager for immediate service abroad left the country to enlist in Canadian, British, or French armies or to take serv- ice with the Eed Cross and other Ambulance units abroad, and in their haste and enthusiasm some of them, although warned of their obligations under the law and required to make a statement that they would answer when called, failed to make arrangements to have their whereabouts made known to their local boards, with a result that they were inducted into the military service as delinquents. Many men enlisted in the Army and the Navy without notifying their local boards. Many men in the floating population of the United States registered leaving an insufficient address, and many foreigners registered luimes unfamiliar to 24 EEPOET OF THE PROVOST MAKSHAL GENEKAL. English spelling, with the result that mailed notices did not reach them. Notice was posted and published in each case of call, but for one reason or another 252,294, or 8.2 per cent of all men called, failed to ap- pear. This figure is included among those certified for military service in excess of the national quota, leaving a total excess of 118,069 on November 12, 1917. A physical examination preceded the exemption ex- amination 'in respect of each man called, and if the registrant was found to be disqualified physically he was discharged forthwith, and there was no neces- sity to proceed furtlier. Of the total number called (3,082,949) 730,756, or 23.7 per cent, were physically rejected. Of the total number actually examined by the boards (2,510,706) the 730,756 represents 29.11 per cent of the men physically examined by local boar-ds and later sent to camp. Of this number 22,989, or 5.8 per cent, were rejected on physical reexamination at camp. Of the total number called (3,082,949) 1,560,570, or 50.62 per cent, made claims of exemption. Of the claims made, 1,215,049, or 39 per cent of persons called, or 77.86 per cent of claims made, were granted. Of 1,419,678 claims made to local boards, 1,161,206 were granted: that is, 81.79 per cent of claims made before local boards were granted. One hundred and forty thousand eight hnndred and ninety-two claims were made to district boards, and 53,843, or 38.21- per (•■cnt of claims made, were granted. District boards discharged only 1.74 per cent of the total number called. " Of the total claims granted (1,161,206), 859,150 or 73.99 per cent of all claims granted were on the ground of dependency, 228,452 or 19.67 per cent were on the ground of alienage, 67,716 or 5.83 per cent were on the ground of vocation, 3,887 or 0.34 per cent on the ground of religious belief, and 2,001 or 0.17 per cent on the ground of moral unfitness. These figures, with the deductions that are to bs made from them, are analytically considered in Part II of this report. At this place it is sufficient to re- i'liark that the statistical projections made from the registration for the purpose of formulating the pre- liminary set of regulations have been almost magi- cally justified by the results of the first selection. At the time of the formulation of those regulations, the very grave industrial and agricultural problem before the Nation was recognized in this office ; but, as shall be developed later in this report, the theory accepted here was that the responsibility for the determination of tlie question whether this Nation was to contribute mili- tarily, industrially, or both, to the allied aims in this cosmic struggle, had been decided before this office Yi'as created; that the decision was for military coop- eration; that this decision imposed upon this office the necessity of producing the first draft of men sjai- chronously with the military preparation to receive f!>cm; and, therefore, that the paramount military necessity was to be adjusted to the agricultural and industrial necessity with the least possible disarrange- ment of the latter, but with the absolute military necessity n. .lays in the foreground. With this thought in mind the first regulations were promulgated. No apology is needed for them. It is believed that they produced a result with such accu- racy in respect of the plan that no substantial criti- cism can be made of them. Formally, it is frankly admitted that they were full of laiiKs. In the haste in which they were pi-epai-ed, it was necessary to ad- here to the most primitive procedure. A different form was prescribed for each permitted exemption claim, with an interesting result that will be found re- flected with absolute faithfulness in the early develop- ment of not only the common, but the Roman Law. It must be of the keenest interest to the lawyer and to the legal historian to note this inevitable reversion to- primitive type, to the formalism of the early common law of writs in the early stage of any legal or quasi- legal development and as a reflection of the evolution of every legal system under the sun. Admittedly, also, and for the reasons hereinbefore btated, these early regulations were not addressed to the complete solution of what must now be recognized as the high functions of this office — the striking of the ultimate balance between the industrial (including the agricultural) needs of the Nation and its military reeds. With a full realization of the ultimate problem, the first regulations were nevertheless intended to serve solely as an expedient which should produce the military result required, with far greater expedition (as it afterwards proved) than was demanded, but in a way such as would never permit this office to fall behind the supply departments in the military prepa- ration of the Nation, and at the same time would pro- tect other national activities against indiscriminate drafts on labor supply. That they have been effective in their result and to this end can never be questioned. EVASION OF THE DKAFT. During the interim between the enactment of tliei selective-service law and registratioir daj' the De- partment of Justice and Inral peace officers through- out the Nation, CHpcciuUy llic ]i()lirc departments of the larger cities, feeling sdini'wliat apprehensive of the spirit in which this novel and imtried method of raising our armies would be accepted, exercised the greatest care in providing for ample cooperation with the s('li'rti\o-(lr;rl'l ollicials for the speedy and effective registration of fligililes. which was, in fact, the first .step in the mobilization of the National Army. Dur- ing the fortnight preceding registration day an oc- casional thront of resistance was reported, but on June 5 nearly Id.OOii.OOO males of the designated ages were successfully registered. So willing were the regis- I trants to demonstrate their approval of the new order EEPORT OF THE PROVOST MARSHAL GENERAL. 25 and to support the Government in the emergency that throughout the 62 Federal district jurisdictions, prac- tically the entire United States, up to December 1 we^ iind a total of only 5,870 arrests made or reported by ■tlie Department of Justice for faihire to register. The authorities early assumed an attitude of leni- ency to^Yard all those who, after arrest, exhibited a willingness to register, and extended tlie locus peni- tcntia as far as possible, believing that the purpose of the law was to secure a full registration rather tlian full jails. Consequentlj', 2,603 of those apprehended were released after having registered and prosecu- tions begun against 2,095, of which 1,645 cases are still pending. It is noteworthy that of those released or prosecuted 3,236 have actually been registered, and in the final analysis but 0.0002G of males between 21 and 30, inclusive, have failed or neglected to register. 1 There were some cases of persons aiding those sub- I jcct to registration to evade or to attempt to evade the I law, and on charges of this nature 180 arrests were i made, of which 3i were convicted and heavy sentences j usually imposed; 21 cases resulted in acquittals. There I are st-ill pending 98 cases of this kind. After the registration came the call for the physical examination of registrants for military service in the c.der of their liability. To the Department of Justice ,i.i(i l<)i;il police officials fell the duty of locating the \ Lcrealouts and apprehending those civilians who had I t responded to this summons. The Department of , i stice," up to December 1, had reported to it 14,212 regis! rants who had failed to appear for physical ex- amination at the various local boards throughout the United States. Of this number 149 were arrested, and 813 were transferred to the military authorities to be dealt with under the rules established for cases of this kind. The final data on this subject (see the further comments in Part II) will undoubtedly show that the number of those who willfully refrained from report- ing is comparatively insignificant. Of the 156 district and 4.rir)T local boards organized and esf-ablished throughout the country for the execu- tion of the selective-service law, the Department of Justice notes few bona fide complaints and reports a negligible number of prosecutions against members thereof. Of individuals indulging in antidraft propaganda throughout the country, 343 prosecutions are reported, with heavy, penalties imposed in practically all cases wliere convictions resulted, there being 105 of these cases now pending. In a few Federal districts efforts have been made to bring before the courts for review on writs of man- damus or habeas corpus, the action of the local and district boards in holding registrants to service. These cases have usually involved claims for exemp- tion from the operation of the Selective Service Law by reason of alienage, and attempts were made to have certain adjudications of selective-draft oiRcials repudiated by court order. The trend of decisions in these cases, however, has been to support the findings of the local and district boards in instances where full and fair hearings have been afforded to the reg- istrants, it being generally held that the jurisdiction of the board is the proper one for the determination of those questions, and that the court will not inter- fere where a registrant has been given an opportunity to be heard. All courts have generally been of the opinion that ample time for the presentation of claims -for discharge or exemption was provided by the Kegulations, and that a claimant must establish his case within the time prescribed. VH. MOBILIZATION. Tlie Provost Marshal General, as the head of the selective-service system, was charged by the Presi- dent's regulations with the general duty of entraining men selected by their boards and of delivering them at the mobilization camps or other points designated by tlie Secretary of War. Under the President's regulations a registrant is in- ducted into the military service from the day and \ hour specified in the notice for him to report to his [ local board for transportation to a mobilization campi or military post. Though the registrant is in the mill-' tary service from and after the arrival of the time| so specified, it is a function of the selective-service sys-; tem to arrange for his subsistence and transportation to the destination to which he is ordered. By a simple,' and as practice has proved, a very workable plan, the local boards marshal and check the several contingents of their respective quotas, issue to them meal and transportation requests, select a competent leader of the party, and superintend the entrainment. It should be clearly understood that the clothing, housing, training, transfer, and discharge of selected men after induction into the military service are mat- ters outside the jurisdiction of the Selective-Service System and of the Provost Marshal General. Simi- larly, the number of selected men called for, whether in all, or at any particular time, and the dates and places of delivery, are questions decided by the War Department proper. When the decision is made, The Adjutant General of the Army transmits the order of the Secretary of War to the Provost Marshal General, whose duty it is to see that the order is carried out. Prior to the mobilization the War Department had impressed upon the Provost Marshal General the urgent necessity of his being in readiness to furnish, beginning September 1, large numbers of drafted men. It was intimated that the first of such men would be called for on September 1, and that there- 26 BEPORT OF THE PEOVOST MABSHAL GENERAL. after large increments of such men would be called for at intervals of about two weeks each ; so that by about October 15 the entire 687,000 men called for in the draft of July 12, 1917, would be in training. Accordingly, the Provost Marshal General urged the States to expedite the selection of men. The States iuid the various local and district boards performed their duties promptly and efficiently. At the stated time they reported that they were ready to furnish men in such numbers jis it had been intimated that they would be called upon to send to camp. Arrange- ments were made with the American Eailway Asso- ciation to cooperate with the Government by prepar- ing schedules for entrainment and by furnishing a representative at each State headquarters to assist and advise the local authorities. The railway association requested that, to enable them to arrange schedules, they be given two weeks' warning of any contemplated movement of troops, together with information as to the number of men to be moved. This report would be incomplete and inconsiderate if this opportunity passed without some mention of the work of the American Eailway Association in mobilizing National Army quotas. No more difficult ti-ansportation problem could be conceived. Small groups were to be assembled at every county seat in the United States, entrained and transported in con- verging contingents at 16 separate destinations, some- times a thousand miles from their points of origin. The smoothness and dispatch with which this prob- lem was solved was nothing short of marvelous. Whatever of uncertainty and lack of coordination may yet remain in the adjustment of our peace-time facilities to the uses of war, it must be said that the railroads' handling of selected men could not haA'e been bettered had it resulted from a military ex- perience of a decade. 1. First call— On August 8, 1917, Tlie Adjutant General of the Army directed that the National Army be called to the colors as follows: 30 per cent to be delivereil commencing September 1. 30 per cent to be delivered commencing September 15. 30 per cent to be delivered commencing September 30. Tlie remainder as soon thereafter as practicable. This information was communicated to the States on August 13, 1917. On the same date, August 13, The Adjutant Gen- eral of the Armj', referring to his letter of August 8, 1917, wrote the Provost Marshal General to the effect that— The Secretary of War, having in mind the fact that Satur- day, Sunday, and Labor Day are three of the first five days in September, directs that the calls be made as follows : First call September 5 (instead of September 1). Second call September 19 (instead of September 15). Third call October 3 (instead of September 30). The remainder as soon thereafter as practicable. Owing to the fact that during the early days of September the railroads would be transporting large .numbers of troops of the National Guard and of the Regular Army, The Adjutant General, " in order to coordinate movements of National Guard and Na- tional Army and movements to ports of embarka- tion," modified, on August 25, his previous instruc- tions and directed that selected men be moved as follows : 5 per cent beginning September 5 (at the rate of 1 per cent each day). 40 per cent beginning September 19. 40 per cent beginning October 3. 15 per cent beginning October 17. On the same date The Adjutant General directed, by letter, that the first 5 per cent should include white men only. These instructions were communicated to governors on August 25, 1917. However, it appeared that at Camp Meade the water-supply system would not be completed by Sep- tember 5, and at Camp Upton the construction of the cantonment would not, on that date, be sufficiently advanced. The calling of the first 5 per cent of men to Camp Meade was, therefore, delayed until September 19 and at Camp Upton until September 10. 2. Second call. — The second call for 40 per cent commencing on September 19 was moved in accord- ance with instructions of August 25, except at Camps Upton, Meade, and Dix. The movement of 40 per cent of selected men to Camp Upton was made in two increments of 20 per cent each on September 19 and September 28. This was to avoid the congestion of traffic, which woukl have ensued had such a largo number of men as 40 per cent of the quota been moved from the small area contributory to Camp Upton. The District of Columbia sent 45 per cent of its quota to Camp Meade on September 26. At Camp Dix the only variation from schedule was that the New York quota (40 per cent) began to move on September 26 instead of on September 19. This call was ordered to be composed exclusively of white men. 3. Third call— On September 22 The Adjutant General of the Army transmitted to the Provost Mar- shal General a memorandum dated September 21, 1917, signed by the Chief of Staff, directing that se- lected white men be mobilized, as foUo-ws: 40 per cent of quotas to Camps Devens, Funston, and Lewis. 30 per cent of quotas to Camp Sherman. 25 per cent of quotas to Camp Upton and, from Okla- homa, to Camp Travis. 20 per cent of quotas to Camps Taylor, Grant, Travis (from Texas), and from Pennsylvania and West Virginia to Camp Lee. 5 per cent of quotas to Camp Meade. "As many white men as are yet certified for military service" were ordered mobilized at Camps Gordon, .lack- son, and Pike, and from Virginia at Camp Lee. This white call totaled about 117,530 men. EEl'OET OF THE PKOVOaT MARSHAL GENEEAL. 2T Colored selected men "were ordered mobilized at the same time, as follows : At Camp I'iki', 12 pop ceut of Louisiana's quota and 16 j per cent of Mississiiipi's quota. i At Camp (Jnr.loii, IT ijcr cent of Georgia's qnoUi. At Camp .Jackson, I'l; per ceut of South Carolina's quota. This colored call totaled about 9.270 men. Total of entire third call about 126,800 men. 4. Fourth call— On October 13 The Adjutant Gen- eral of the Army informed the Provost Marshal Gen- eral that the Secretary of War directed colored men to I be mobilized on October 27, as follows : Cainp.s Upton, Meado, Lee. Sherman, Custer, Grant, ' Fun.ston, and Lewis, all of ccrritifd colored quotas; in ad- dition 7 per cent of 'rrhiicsscr's quota (all colored) were ordered mobilized at I'miqi Mcnde, and all of Oklahoma's colored quota were ordered moljilized at Camp Sherman. Camp Dodge, '25 per cent of Alabama's quota (all col- ored) and 1 per cent of its own quota (all colored). Camp Travis, 12 per cent of Texas's quota (all colored). I Camp Jackson, 10 per cent of South Carolina's quota (all colored). Camp Pike, 10 per cent of Arkansas and Louisiana quotas (all colored). I This colored movement comprehended about 29,300 men. At the same time the Secretary of War ordered the following movements of white men. to commence " as soon after October 27 as will not interfere with the colored draft": Camp Meade : " Whites yet certified." Camp Lewis : "All remaining whites yet certified.'' The movement of these white men commenced No- vember 2, 1917. The total of white movement was r.Lout 18,000: the total of white and colored was about 47,300 men. In a letter dated November 1.5, The Adjutant General informed the Provost Marshal General that the Secretary of War authorized the calling to the colors of 1 per cent of the quota of each divisional area. This movement was authorized with a view to relieving cases of hardship where men, having been notified of selection, had given up their employment expecting to be sent immediately to camp. ."). FIffh call. — On November 5 the Secretary of War directed that there be called to the colors and sent to Camp Custer 30 per cent of the quota of that can- tonment, all to be white. This movement compre- hended about 10,800 men and took place during the five-day period beginning November 19. On Novem- ber 6 the Secretary directed a movement of 15 per cent of its quota to Camp Dix. This movement also com- menced during the five-day period beginning Novem- ber 19. About G,450 men were called to the colors, of whom about 1,450 were colored. The total of the fifth call was about 17,250 men. G. /Sixth cull. — ^The Secretary of War directed on November 21 that 20 per cent of quota of Camp Up- ton (about 8,440 men) be .sent to that camp. This movement took place during the five-day period com- mencing December 5. 7. Seventh call. — On December 7, The Adjutant (leneral of the A.rmy directed tliat tlio remainder of the quota of that portion of Pennsylvania contribu- tory to Camp Sherman be called to the colors and transported to that camp. The movement took place during the five-dav period commencing December 14 and comprised about 1,000 men. 8. Eighth call. — On December 8 the Secretary of War directed the immediate call into military service of 9,000 white men to be sent direct to the coast de- fenses Oi- Portland, Portsmouth. Boston, Narragansett Bay, Long Island Sound, eastern New York, southern New York, Sandy Hook, the Delaware, Baltimore, the Potomac, Savannah, Pensacola, Mobile, New Orleans, Galveston, San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco, •the Columbia, and Piigct SdiiihI. Tlieso men were ordered to be sent (nit diirinu tlu- live-day period com- mencing December l!» and were di-awn from the fol- lowing States: Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakotti, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Texas, and West Vir- ginia. Summuvy. — The total number of men called for in the draft of July 12, 1917, was 687,000. Of these there have been called to the colors up to the date of preparing this report (Dec. 20), for duty at mobiliza- tion camps and coast-defense commands, about 527,100, or 76.72 per cent of the entire draft. Included among these 527,100 men are about 2,300 men who were specially inducted from their status as drafted men at the request of the different corps or branches of the Arm}' and sent to places other than mobilization camps. A flexible system has now been adopted whicli will permit the voluntary or involun- tary induction of both skilled and unskilled men, eitlier in accordance with their regular order of lia- bility to service or regardless of such order of lia- bility. Men so inducted will be sent where they are especially needed and not necessarily to mobilization camps. The Provost Marshal General is ready and able to produce all of the remaining men called for under the initial draft. Many States have expressed not only a readiness but a desire to send their selected men to camp, in some instances reporting that the failure to call for men already notified of selection is causing considerable hardship and dissatisfaction. EEPOKT OF THE TKOVOST MABSHAL GENEBAL. vin. FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS AND COST OF DRAFT. (I) FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS. 1. At the time the present fiscal policy for the selec- tive-service sj'stem was under consideration all depart- ments of the Federal Government were overwhelmed by offers of voluntary and uncompensated service. Influenced by this splendid showing, calls were made upon the governors of 48 States for their advice on the question that was up for consideration, namely, whether uncompensated service should be solicited and received in the execution of the selective-service law. The response was almost unanimously affirma- tive. We adopted the policy in the Eegalations Gov- erning Disbursements, issued June 15, 1917, in which the President stated: Tlie desire in all commuuities to render patriotic service to tile Government has given rise to numerous assurances tliat civilian services required in connection witli the registration, selection, and draft authorized by the selective-service act will, in many cases, be rendered gratuitously. In order, however, that no person selected for such service may find himself com- pelled to decline to serve because the financial sacrifice involved is too great, compensation wiis authorized in cases in which the services referred to are not rendered gratuitously. An estimate of funds laid before Congress was com- puted with a view to a large proportion of such gra- tuitous service. Members of boards were from the very beginning of the administration given to understand that the necessity for economy and uncompensated services was a vital element in the execution of this law; that, as the duty of all selection boards was to go into Ameri- can homes and take out for the service of the Nation our strongest and best young men to send them to the battle lines to incur the risks of a sacrifice which is not and can not be measured in terms of money compensa- tion, so the duty of selection boards ought to be given tltc asi)ect of a service of the same sort; and that as far as possible this service should be rendered without contpensation. Recognizing, however, that many patriotic citizens would find the burden of uncom- jDensated service unsupportable, and that this element, ought not to be excluded from participation in the administration of the law, rates of compensation to moot the financial sacrifices in such cases were pre- scribed. It was the underlying idea that the law ■would impose a sacrifice upon each community to the necessity of the Nation, and it was especially desired that at no time should the execution of the law have the as]3ect of a taking from each community *of its fiuofa by paid agents of the Federal Government. 2. The response was most inspiring. Thousands of members appointed to the boards declared their in- tention to render the service without compensation for their loss of time. Regardless of the injury to their personal affairs or to their business, they came to the assembling places of the boards, stayed from morning till late at night, and continued this devoted service throughout the hot months of the summer, day after day, without remuneration. Captains of industry and labor leaders, professional men and business men, teachers and doctors, university pre.-iilents and public officials of counties and cities — all aliko joined in the huge task of making the selective-ser\icu administra- tion an efficient success without any regard for finan- cial sacrifices or business losses. This was a part of their contribution to the war, and it was made eagerly and gladly. They were, by a large majority, the older men, the responsible men of affairs in the community, who were neither eligible nor liable for military service; but they regarded themselves as equally drafted with the younger men into the service of the Nation, and they made their contributions in the shape of time, sldll, and labor, and of the sacrifices to their business and personal affairs. Had they been paid in money, it woidd have been an ordinary commercial transaction of hiring or appointing. In fact, it was the discharge by them of an obligation to the entire NUtion — a service, never- theless, for which the Nation can never repay them in any amount measured by money figures. 3. Here and there, however, not only w^ere services charged for, but reports were received of boards that have met from day to day with an apparent sole pur- pose of basing a claim for compensation. As an in- stance, one board whose total quota to be produced was six men, submitted a claim for compensation amounting to several htindred dollars. This, of course, was an exceptional case, which the great ma- jority of our board members would condemn; but it is such boards as this that would have produced an in- flated unit cost. It was such boards, also, that rendered necessary the strict and formal system of accounting which the Provost Marshal General instituted in the regulations for disbursements above quoted. This system of ac- counting was calculated to put a check upon the ex- travagance and irresponsibility which occasionally was met with. Had such a check not been rigorously imposed, this extravagance was likely to spread to an injurious extent. Nevertheless, the requirements of the accounting system which insisted that authority should be obtained beforehand for important expenses, and that vouchers ])roperly made out in detail should be presented before payment could be made, proved to be irksome and inconvenient to many boards whose competence and business judgment could have been fully trusted to regulate theii- expenses in the effective KEPORT OF THE FEOVOST MARSHAL GENERAL. 2y manner of experienced business men. Furthennore, the inevitable delays caused occasionally by the con- gestion in the offices of the State adjutants general led, in some instances, to further inconvenience. The enor- mous nature of the task, the creation of the system and the organization suddenly and out of material new to the task, the complexity of the correspondence passing up from nearly five thousand boards through fifty adjutants general will sufficiently explain the occasional obstacles and delays which were felt in their effects to the inconvenience of the boards. But the boards, for the most part, met even this difficult situation with an astonishing degree of patri- otic vigor, characteristic of American power of achievement. Hundreds of boards advanced out of the pockets of the members the sums necessary to pay clerks, to hire quarters, and to purchase supplies, and patiently awaited the settlement of the accounts by the Government. To all those boards who so nobly and efficiently responded in this direct and prompt manner to the exigencies of the situation, instead of weakly permitting themselves to be blocked by the temporary obstacles, the Nation owes a debt of recog- nition and gratitude which it can never repay; but it should be publicly and emphatically aclmowledged in these pages. 4. Toward the end of November estimates of the money cost of the administration within the various States were called for. The preliminary estimates of cost from the various States disclosed remarkable dis- crepancies, ranging between $3 and $17 per capita of quota due. The States estimating a high per capita cost were then asked to scan closely all claims for com- pensation and reimbursement, for the jiurpose of eliminating unraeritorious claims and of bringing the cost of administration throughout the United States to a more uniform figure, and to make a vigorous and renewed appeal to the splendid patriotism and un- selfish devotion with which the administration of this law was begun. On November 15, in order to obtam the most com- plete and accurate information, adjutants general di- rected their disbursing officer to prepare immediately a printed form calling upon each member of local and district boards, or other persons likely to submit claims for their services, for an exact and final statement of all their claims for service in the execution of this law to include November 24. Boards whose claims were exorbitant or exceeded a reasonable cost, as disclosed by a comparison of the expense accounts of the ma- jority of boards or of the most efficient boards, were required to explain their figures, and were cautioned that not the least effective index of their cooperation in helping the Nation in this emergency is this figure of cost. It would certainly not seem to be too great a demand upon the members of boards to ask them to exercise economy and frugality in their control of Gov- ernment exi^enditures during the present emergency. About December 1 each disbursing officer submitted by telegram to this office an itemized statement of the expense incurred up to and including November 24, showing separately the amoxmt of money actually ex- pended and the amount of just indebtedness incurred and outstanding against the Federal appropriation, and, specificallj'', compensation of members of local boards, compensation of members of district boards, compensation of clerks, allowances for travel, rental of offices, purchase of supplies, etc. 5. This office has by some been accused of parsi- mony in its fiscal administration. But the matter has never been viewed here as one of mere dollars and cents. Under the selective-service law, members of boards are as effectively drafted as are the men whom they send to the battle field. It is altogether well that this should be so. It is intrmsic to the psycho- logical atmosphere that should surround the draft. The solemn function of these men should never ap- pear to be exercised in the hope of any other reward than that of the satisfaction to be derived from a grave duty well discharged. The aspect of pecuniary and physical sacrifice was deliberately impressed to this sole end. During the period of the classification which will require the im- divided attention of board members, compensation for their services is provided. After the classification their duties will be no more onerous than those per- formed by members of town councils and many other local officials who are not compensated. It is in- tended, therefore, that as soon as the classification is complete, compensation of members of local and dis- trict boards shall cease, and the only continuing ex- pense of the selective-service system shall be continued authority to hire the necessary clerical force, not to exceed one competent clerk for each board. (II) COST OF DRAFT. 1. Per capita cost. National and State. — From the reports sent in by the governors of the several States between December 1 and December 3, it ajDpears that the total ^'expense (including money paid out and liabilities incurred) was $5,211,965.38. Appendix Table C shows the total figures from each State, to- gether with the per capita figures. Appendix Table D shows the expenditures in detail from each State, classified under the several heads. (1) It thus appears that the per capita cost of the selective-service system, nationally, to the end of the first draft was as follows: Cost per registraut ?0. 54 Cost per man caUed 1. 69 Cost per man accepted for service 4. 93 Cost per man of quota due 7. 59 REPOKT OF THE PliOVOST MAESHAL GENEEAL. Of tlicse several per capita costs, the third, i. e., Iirr iv.ini (ifi-cj'inj for ^<)-r/rr. is oi.ivioiisly the most significaiil. Ix'iiiij,- tho iicuv-i In ilii> ical measure of tiie money expense of the system for the first draft. The fourtli figure, i. e., per capita cost per man of qiioto, due, is, of course, too narrow a basis for cost estimate, because tlie entire effect produced by the expenditure of the money is to be measured not merely by the number of meii required to be raised but by the number of men effectively obtained for service; and this number (see Appendix Table 4) lies someAvhere between the total number certified, 1,057,363 (not all of whom appeared on call), and the number to be raised as required by the President's call, or GS7,000. The reasons for the certifying of an excess number of men have been fully explained in Chapter X, Table 4, of this report. Had the President named 1,000,000 men as the number to be raised, soraethmg near that number would have been ready for the camps as' the result of the identical expenditure. In other words, tlie true estimate of cost being the number of men actually produced as ready for service, it would have cost very little more under the selective-service system ((> produce a million men if a million men had been called for. To the above sum, consisting of tlie expenses of nearly 5,000 boards and 50 adjutants' general offices in the States, must, of course, be added the overhead ex- pense (Appendix Table E) of the Provost Marshal . Geneial's (iliiiT in AA^ashington. This overhead ex- pense. ho\v(.'\er. : hoiild iu part be spread over tlie en- suing (.Irafts. Taivlni; lialf tlic expense of equipment and all of the saiu!!;.- and supplies up to the end of November (except suili as weio incurred as a part of administering the nev\' selective-service regulations go- ing into elt'ect December 15 in preparation for further drafts), the total of such ovcrhoad expense is $1.32,829.30. This amount, hovo-.^.r. .i„:nl,l be offset by one-half the amount of pernuDu m equipment now on hand with the various boards, because such equip- ment will serve for further drafts also. Estimating this one-half at $50,000 '-''■ "- --' -vprlioad expense would be $82,-396.36. ' A ■ :,'.<'.- ualional total reported from the - : ^ . . \ <■ ha \ c a i;rand total of $5,294,361.74, cr a per capita cost per man certified for service of $5. (2) In the several States the per capita cost ranged widely. Per man accepted for service it ranged be- tween $1.57 and $L9. The lowest cost was in Okla- homa and in North Dakota; the highest, in Ehode Island and in Elaine. Appendix Table C shows the variances in detail. The causes for this variance will require farther study. From the point of view of the boards in the several States, however, it is important to note the differences between the i^er capita costs per registrant and per man ClIAKT O. JIAX CERTIFIED FOB SEBVICE, — r-J . _,2..-i /-' N.C ^>- — L/ — s: Average Cost U.S. *^- "\ TEXAS #3? r" \ KEPOBT OF THE PROVOST MARSHAL GENERAL. 31 called, as well as the per capita cost per man certified for service. A large part of the expenses were pro- portionate to the number of registrants in a given area ; that is, a board having 5,000 or 6,000 registrants neces- sarily incurred larger expenses than a board having 500 or 600 registrants, no matter how many men were called or were certified. Similarly, the expense of call- ing luen for physical examinations and for hearing on claims was a large item regardless of the total number of men ultimately certified; for example, in a board having 30 j^er cent aliens, the expense of calling them and passing upon their claims was a necessary expense, although none of the aliens might be certified; thus, two boards which certified for service 300 men apiece might have called and examined 1,000 and 500 men, respectively, in order to produce the same number of certified men. For the foregomg reasons it as only just to the sev- eral States that the per capita cost per registrant and the per capita cost per man called should be com- pared, as well as the per capita cost per man certified. Appendix Table C, showing these several per capita costs for the respective States, makes it plain that some States having a relatively high per capita cost per man certified for service had a much more moderate cost per man called or per registrant. These differences should be taken into consideration in fairness to the earnest and laborious work of the thousands of boards who have i-endered their services in this great task. 2. Per capita cost of the Selective-Service systemand of Recruiting, compared.— It should not be omitted from consideration that the selective-service system, besides its advantages as a rational and necessary measure for raising the National Army, has also the advantage of being a more economical system than that of recruiting by voluntary enlistment. The comparative statement of unit cost between the recruiting system and the selective-draft system is a difficult one to formulate accurately. To make the comparison fair to the recruiting system* we should eliminate the expense of travel paid between recruiting station and recruiting depot, the cost of subsistence prior to acceptance at the latter, the expenses at gen- eral recruiting depots, and the cost of clothing. The cost of obtaining men by the selective-service system will include only expenses up to the time of entrain- ment for the camps. By a statement received from The Adjutant General and placed in Appendix Table G, it appears that the per capita cost of recruiting in the year 1914 was $21.48 and in 1915 $19.14. It further appears, from a statement of The Adjutant General, printed as Appendix Table F, that the per capita cost of recruiting for the first nine months of the fiscal year 1917 — July, 1916, to April, 1917, inclusive — was $28.95. The marked economy of the selective-service sys- tem is apparent. 3. Per capita cost of the Selective-Service system in 1917 and the Civil War draft, compared. — Under the act of March 3, 1863, Gen. James B. Fry was ap- pointed the Provost Marshal General. In his report dated March 17, 1SG6, he states (on p. 2, second para- graph) that the cost of recruiting 1,356,593 men, prior to the passage of the act referred to, was $34.01. What items of expenditures were considered in arriving at tliis per capita cost are not shown ; but because he uses these figures in comparison with the per capita cost of raising the Army mider his administration, it is fair to presume that the same items were considered. Under the act of March 3, 1863, referred to, each district of every loyal State was assigned a certain (iuota of men which it was required to produce for the Army. If the entire quota volunteered, no draft was held. If part volunteered, the balance were drafted. For that reason the expenses of the volunteer and draft systems under Gen. Fry's administration were so intermingled that no separate per capita cost can be arrived at. His report shows (p. 749) a total of 1,120,621 men produced at a cost of $11,027,715.21 or $9.84 per capita. This report nowhere gives the items going to make up the total amount. Of this number, only 168,649 were drafted men or substitutes. Considering this low number of dr-afted men, and the fact that the total expenditure of over eleven million included these drafted men and all of the volunteers, and the further fact that there must have been but relatively small ex- penditure in securing the volunteers, the per capita cost for producing the drafted men would have been seen to be very much higher, if it had been possible to segregate the expenses on account of producing them. But any comparison with the Civil War cost is, of course, valueless unless we keep in mind the much lower money values of those days; that is to say, the relative wage-payuig power of money at the period of the Civil War two generations ago was several times higher than it is now. The sum of $10 in those da3's woidd purchase services which to-day would cost $20 or moi-e. As an illustration of this, it may be men- tioned that the general wage-level rose from 50 degrees to 100 degrees between 1865 and 1910. We may fairly assume, therefore, that the per capita cost of the Civil War was relatively several times higher than the mere figures show it to be. In short, for the purposes of the present day and our present problems of cost, the true standard of economy for the selective-service system is a compari- son, as above given, between the expense of the recruit- ing system and the expense of the selective-service system. In so far as we are forced to consider the purely financial aspect, the Selective-Service system is the most 32 KEPOKT OF THE PEOVOST MAESHAL GENERAL. economical measure that could iDOSsibly have been de- vised for raising the National Army of brave men to defend the cause of liberty and democracy against the nefarious world-designs of a ruthless hostile po^Yer. IX. THE FUTUKE. When the breathless haste of the first draft was over there was time to consider the probleifi in its larger aspects and to make provision against the fu- ture. The industrial and agricultural needs of the nation were strongly developed as a result of the first di-aft. In the light of literal thousands of special urgings and claims for consideration arising from the emer- gent need of every activity in the Nation, and pressed with patriotic singleness of purpose, but not always with patriotic broadness of view, the needs of every department of national activity had been emphatically presented to this office. In these circumstances the whole problem may be regarded as having been pre- sented in full perspective. It may be shortly stated thus: The needs of the war have resulted in an unprece- dented demand for labor in the following vital fields : (1) Shipbuilding and manning, (2) munitions manu- facture, (3) agriculture. These three principal activi- ties are listed in this order after considerable thought and a wide experience and discussion. The predica- tion for this result is roughly as follows: The na- tional industrial and agricultural need may, in the light of the experience of years, be relied u]Don to move toward adjustment in the mutual reaction of supply and demand, accelerated by certain indirect , metliods of which the draft itself is one. Experience has not shown that the national shipbuilding pi-o- gram may do so. To descend to platitude, it is an ill wind that blows nobody good. The Ci-^il War removed our merchant flag from the seven seas, with untold disparagement of our national advan- tage. If the World War can restore it we shall reap benefit for generations to come. The guiding prin- ciple of this office must be "military efl'ectiveness first," but when military effectiveness is enmeshed with marine effectiveness, as it must be in a foreign war on a battle field "-.Oim) miles from our coast line, there is no room fui ln-italion. If our soldiers are to be effective, if the munitions we produce are to be effec- tive, if our agricultural productiveness is to be effec- tive, we must produce the bottoms to carrj^ all aboard. When we iiinl coupled with this a promise for the fu- ture wliiih lurcts a need unfilled in ."lO years of peace- time effort there ran be little room for hesitation. Since we are in war military effectiveness comes first, but there never was a more fortunate corollary for the Nation than that marine effectiveness comes next. IIowe\er, soldiers are helpless M'ithout weapons, and what has been said can never be taken to mean that the manufacture of munitions is to be hampered by the building of ships or the disproportionate raising of armies. All of these things are to be carried syn- chronously forward, and the problem is simply one of relative adjustment from month to month and year to year, with no thought of carrying one to a dispropor- tionate prejudice of the other. The same is true of agricultural productiveness. The problem is to carry each evenly forward, avoiding the destruction of any. It must not be forgotten, however, that the problem does not stop here. The entire effectiveness of the Nation has not been envisioned when we have men- tioned the manufacture of the instruments of war, the instrumentalities for the over-seas transportation of them, and the men who are to manipulate them. The Nation must be an economic integer and a very effec- tive one, and all is by no means said when these es- sentials are menlicnd. It is a solemn fact that no strict legal constni. tidni-t could read the Selective- Service Law as a direct protection of all national ac- tivities. Commerce, for instance, is not only not men- tioned, but, according to the strictest construction of its terms, is not even suggested. " Industry," espe- cially when the word is qualified by such significant addition as " includina- atricnlture," does not import commerce or any nt'iicr than strictly pi'oductive en- deavors. Yet the Sded he-Service Law must receive a common-sense administration unless it is to fail. The economic balance of the Nation must be preserved. All these thoughts had been presented and con- sidered here when in Septeml>er of this year it was determined that tlie time had come when the regula- tions should be revised and the entire original plan of the draft be reconsidered. The resolution was rather one of expediency than afterlliought. The necessity had always been recognized, but it had not been an- ticipated that the delay in preparation liy the supply depai'tments would permit of the readjustment so soon. The instant that the respite was granted orders were given for the rewriting of the regulations on the lines just suggested. ^ L^pon the most superficial survey it was apparent that we are already facing a unique disarrangement of the labor supply appurtenant to every normal in- dustry, and especially that appurtenant to agriculture. Urgent drafts had been made upon our industrial and agricultural industries by the war in Europe be- fore our own participation therein. Vital necessities abroad had invaded our markets with unusua.l de- mands, resulting in unusual labor requirements. The available credit of the wdiKI liml lieen rendered con- tributory to new induslri(\-;. with a residting coales- cence of raw labor sup]ily alxiut iiHlnsti'ics s'llcly en- gaged in the manufacture of iusli-iiineuts nf (Ictruc- tiou. and with tlie inevitable c-or, -<• iiiciir;' of jiaucity of labor in our normal peace4inii' i!id:i tri;'s, i:-.c'.;id- KEPOKT OF THE PHOVOST MAESHAL GENERAL. 33 ing agriculture. The industrial, economic, and labor balance was in this manner upset. And it becomes in- stantly apparent that, with any considerable reduction in man power iqv the uses of the Army, some, if not all, industries will find this already overtaxed labor suppl}' seriously curtailed. Such a condition is the inevitable consequence of modern war. Under a perfect economic system the productive enterprise of a nation affords a field for labor for all able-bodied men. War being an emergent condition, even under such a perfect system, the in- stant necessity is profound adjustment to meet the paramount demand of the Army. But the adjustment is required not alone by the necessity for armed men. The increased manufacture of the instruments of war requires as great or even greater drafts of men from normal peace-time industries. This second require- ment had already been made upon our normal indus- tries by our efforts to supply the needs of the allied powers. Upon a declaration of war, these already ab- normal demands were increased by our own immediate warlike necessities. It was this condition that was to be addressed by the first regulations which were poten- tial of so profound an effect upon our national supply of man power. As has already been pointed out, it was the object of the old regulations to enter tlie disturbed condi- tion with a plan for raising 087,000 men in the short time available and with the least possible interfer- ence with national activities. The maximum number of cases that we could hope to consider in the time available was 3,000,000. The maximum number of men available was 10,000,000. Scientifically, the regu- lations should have been so framed as to produce pre- cisely the 687,000 most available men in the whole 10,000,000. Practically there was no time to examine 10,000,000 cases. Therefore, the regulations were so drawn as to select the 687.000 most available men in 3,000,000. Admittedly, the regulations for future drafts had to be revised to produce three times as effective a discrimination. But there was much more than this circumstance, striking as it is, to be considered. The draft itself is an instrument of compelling force in controlling and distributing labor supply throughout the United States. It is conceivable that our national necessities may require a direct draft of labor. Repugnant as this may seem to some of our ingrained peace-time ideas, there can be little doubt of the authority of the Government to adopt such a measure. But there are measures short of this suggested in the draft regula- tions as they now stand, which give a powerful lever of control of labor supply that should be tried before we pass to the extreme of a direct industrial draft. Since this is so, the responsibilities of this office do not end with the prompt supply of levies for the Army. 3209G— 18 3 The entire industrial field must be explored, provision of facile and effective methods must be perfected, and the selective-service system must stand as a pervasive and supple control which shall serve its purpose, so far as its powers make possible, in coordinating the man power of the Nation and so fostering its industries in a nice and impartial balance which shall carry for- ward all varied endeavors, not singly or irregularly, but compacted in an even and synchronized march. With these ideas uppermost it was necessary to amend the original regulations. They had not been addressed to the bulk supply of labor appurtenant to any industry or agriculture, but had contented them- selves with the preservation of indispensable men, and they protected all such industries only by incidental effect of the vastly effective exemption of men whose circumstances as to dependents relieved them from liability to the draft. It must not bo supposed, however, that this protec- tion was insignificant. Applying to any class of in- dustry (or any other national activity), the rule po- tently applicable to all, it becomes apparent that at least 80 per cent of the labor supply appurtenant to any particular class is either wholly removed from the operation of the draft by being under or over the age limit or is deferred by the domestic circumstance of the dependency of relatives. It is then relatively a small field within Avhicli wo have to function, and the draft is not by any means the bogey that it is often made to appear. It must be emphasized that the desired result can not be made by the administration of the draft alone, and, before entering a discussion of the thing which is to be achieved, the thing that has already been ac- complished by other belligerents must be mentioned. It is impossible to say what armed strength of the central pow"ers has been put into the field, but with only 60,000,000 people in Germany and less than 50,000,000 in Austria-Hungary, it is perfectly appar- ent that the military burden imposed upon those two countries alone has been many times as heavy as anything we have been called upon to face, and that, with conspicuous success they have met it, as have England and France. To what precise extent it is not feasible now to say, but one thing at least is certain: the nations with which and against which we are arrayed have made such sacrifices of man power, such adjustments of agricultural and industrial relations to meet these sacrifices, that it little becomes us to emphasize above a whisper, as a substantial national problem, anything that we have yet been called upon to face. Eelativcly, the surface of our resource of men has not been scratched. Unless we are to con- fess a national inefficiency, shameful before tlie nations of the world, we shall solve these problems without great controversy. 34 KEPOET OP THE PROVOST MARSHAL GENERAL. That these nations have made these economic ad- justments at a sacrifice is not to be questioned. That our people have not as yet shown too great a dispo- sition for proportionate, or even comparable, adjust- ments is unfortunately true. We should hear less and do more in this regard. One thing must be borne in mind. Adjustments to the war-time need of the Nation are to be made. The direct draft on labor supply is the draft of the Army. Every other responsible activity sees that draft in horrific perspective. Adjustments are demanded, and always, as a first insistence, at the expense of the Army. Actuated by none but the most pa- triotic impulses, representatives of different inter- ests — agriculturists, industrialists, men engaged in oceanic shipping, educators, and religionists — have come forward with arguments for absolute exemption of their class from draft — arguments which, in their respective field, are almost unanswerable, but which, in the broad view of the national necessity, would (if all were acceded to) result in a Falstaffian army composed only of vagrants and the sons of the idle rich, inade- quate in numbers and contemptible in personnel. Against such blandishments this office must stand forth without compromise. Herein it must be sup- ported by the manhood and the mature and unbiased thought of the Nation, or its plan of selection must fail. And with its failure the Nation must confess inadequacy in the virility of the fighting nations of the world. THE NEW CLASSIFICATION. The new regulations are intended to accomplish two principal things. The first is to nuike a scientific and most complete inventory of our man power, with a searching inquiry into the qualifications and the in- dustrial and domestic circumstances of each man reg- istered; with this at hand, the second is to make a scientific classification of their relative availability for military service and for all the war-time activities of the Nation. With these two objects accomplished, the registered field ceases to be an heterogeneous medley of unor- ganized resources. It becomes rather as the keyboard of a piano, upon which, by easy manipulation, the maximum result in any desired harmonization of ef- fect may be accomplished. It was to this capital pur- pose that the new system is addressed. Its first step is to require from each registrant an .uniform and simply executed inventory of his quali- fications and circumstances by means of a o.uestion- naire, composed of inquiries carefully designed to elicit answers which shall .compel conclusions along the desired lines. It provides for an immediate classi- fication of all registrants iiito five classes arranged in the inverse order of their availability for military service. When the classification is complete we shall be prepared to make the maximum use of every direct and indirect influence on labor supply growing out of the Selective-Service Law. « Examining the system more closely, we find that it is designed to list in Class I, the names of those whose immediate induction into military service will least interfere with the industrial, economic, and agri- cultural life of the Nation. It excludes from that class the key and pivotal men, whether they be mana- gers or assistant managers of farms or mechanical or administrative experts in factories. The latter classes, it defers into Classes III and IV, and it excludes from immediate liability to draft skilled labor in both in- dustry and agriculture. In the troublesome field of dependency claims, it endeavors to address with the most unequivocal rules cvei y difiiciilty that was raised in the first draft, and, as tn iiuiniid men, to include in the immediately available class i iily those who by no stretch of the imagination should be deferred on any ground of dependency. While it attempts to protect only those engaged in industries essential to the national interest, it covers by the clearest terms all agriculture and all indus- tries except those patently nonessential. It is designed to produce an immediately available class which shall pi'otect all skilled labor appurtenant to agriculture and to all essential industrj'. The failure in direct deferment on account of en- gagement in nonessential industries may seem at first sight to depart from the resolution that the general industrial balance of the Nation is not to be destroyed. The first impression fails to consider the effect of the dependency deferments and the fact already adverted to that fully 80 per cent of men in any particular industry, essential or nonessential, are removed en- tirely from the operation of the draft by being under or over draftable age or on account of dependency exemptions. The protection to nonessential industry, while not nearly so effective as that offered to essential industrj', is sufficient to prevent destruction. This is as it should be. The added protection to essential in- dustry will be a force to attract labor to such industry, but it will not be such a potent force as to destroy nonessential industry. Great pressure has been exerted, first, to withdraw any exemption whatever from nonessential industry; second, to grant absolute exemption to all labor (skilled and unskilled) engaged in essential industry. The second is the milder course. Tlie first is revo- lutionary. Either would be so potent as to coalesce labor supply about the favored industry. Tlie second suggestion has been used specifically for the benefit of shipbuilding. The creation of a mer- chant marine is conceived by this office to be (next to the unhampered raising of our Army) the most vitally necessary step in the prosecution of the war. As soon EEPORI OF THE PROVOSI MARSHAL GENERAL. 35 as it was made to appear that there was not siifficient labor to carry this jjrojeet forward, there was inserted in the new i-egulations a provision granting absohite immunity from draft to laborers engaged in the build- ing and fitting of ships under the supervision of the Navy or the Emergency Fleet Corporation. The effect was electrical, and there is every indication that it will prove to be continuously effective. There is no longer any labor shortage in that industry. But the danger of such a step was instantly demon- strated. Munition factories at once demanded the same protection. The time has not yet come for this. If it were accorded to munition factories, agricidture would present a claim equally substantial, and the result would be such an inroad into class I as to abate it, to drive us into classes II and III in all other in- dustries, and thus to break down the entire value and effect of the classification system. We can not take such a step now. When the classification is complete we shall knoAV to the uttermost ounce just what con- cessions the Army can make to the other paramount industries of the Nation. Until that time no further concessions may be made. But this must be recognized: Even after all such concessions have been made, the labor supply will be insufficient for the demands of even necessary in- dustries. Man-power adjustments must be made on every hand, and they can no longer be made at the expense of the Army. What are termed nonessential industries must not be destroyed; and if this Nation can not continue under the relatively slight burden upon its man power, then it will stand established as the incompetent among the civilized nations of the world. Such a result is unthinkable. The problem must be faced and solved. This office will go as far as is humanly possible, but with its limited power it can not offer a complete solution. Women must take the place of men wherever that is possible. AVaste of effort must be abolished. And finally, aside from manipulation of the effect of the draft, more subtle and equally powerful methods must be evolved, labor must be regulated, and the disproportionate prices now prevalent for the inducement of labor to abnormal areas must be" controlled by administrative regulation which shall more effectively control the supply of labor appurtenant to every war-time in- dustry. In no other manner can this very clearly defined and really simple problem be approached. The powerful potentialities of the draft, the re- vision of the regulations to make full use of them, and the lines along which it may be necessary to proceed, have thus far been outlined. Before descending to the less fundamental (but hardly less important) re- visions, there arc one or two further aspects of these fundamental principles which require address. THE INCOMING AGE 21 AND THE ATTAINED AGE 30. No human mind can forecast the resultant numbers in Class J, but (as the roughest guess based on the experiences of the first draft) it is estimated that Class I will comprise a list of physically acceptable men in number close to one million — enough for any call in present prospect. Wliether this guess be justified in prac- tice or not, it can be announced now as the policy and belief of this office that in all probability it will be pos- sible to fill oar military needs without ever invading any class more deferred than Class I; and this is the promise, the standard, and the goal, here for the first time an- nounced, toward which every administrative effort of this office shall be directed. It is admitted that the fulfillment of this hope will require further legislation (as shall be presently ex- plained), and the requirements of the war may im- pose problems that will demand much more profound adjustments; but as a rough measure of protection it is not too much to say that the present classification scheme offers possibilities that have never been at- tained by any other nation in the history of war. It is perfectly demonstrable that the fostering of our industrial and agricultural institutions requires tho deferment — not of the younger men, who have not yet become integi'ated with the domestic, industrial, or agi'icultural life of the Nation — but rather of men who have passed bej'ond their majority and who have as- sumed domestic or industrial or agricultural relations which demand their discharge from the obligations of military service. Therefore, presuming that the mili- tary needs of the Nation should require more men than those who within the present draftable ages, and under the present rules would be in Class I, the problem would instantly present itself whether it were better to invade the deferred classes or to add another class of younger men. Between the two alternatives there can be little hesi- tation. Against the proposition to add tho class of men who have reached 21 since last registration there can be urged but a single objection, that among the younger men will be found those who are just com- pleting their education and, as has already been force- fully urged, that where the education is technical (medical, chemical, or engineering) the completion of the training of men so skilled is necessary for war purposes. As to such teclmical students the arguments are overwhelming and they have prevailed. In other fields of education different considerations are controlling. If a nation is to make any sacrificial adjustment it is here. The value of an educated youth is not to be underestimated, but war is an emergent condition which by the very nature of the problem can not last forever. AVhile due provision must be made for the future, the obligation of military service is not KEPOET OF THE PBOVOST MARSHAL GENEBAL. lightly to be passed over. It is not diiRcult to find that the relations of a man to the war industries of a nation are sufficient to defer his call to military service and in his place to send another man to a stern and vicarious sacrifice; but it is much more difficult to reach the conclusion 'that, either the interests of the nation or the interests of the favored man, are suffi- cient to justify sending forth in the place of a college student a less fortunate youth at the imminent and great peril of life — not because he is better fitted to defend his country (for admittedly such is not the case), but because the national life has vouchsafed him fewer opportunities. Yet that idea is rampant in the Nation. It is unfair and unjustly partial. Human lives and destinies are at stake. There is too great a disjDosition to weaken on this gi-ound; and the sooner the Nation comes to an exact realization of the issues involved the sooner will the powerful disposition of high but single-minded educators be opposed in this regard. The inclusion of the class of those arriviiag at the age of 21 should add yearly at least 700,000 unde- ferred men to the available class, and with such an ad- dition there is certainly no immediate necessity of going beyond Class I in future drafts. This is a consummation most devoutly to be desired. It re- moves from consideration the most troublesome prob- lems of the draft and places us in a most enviable po- sition among belligerent nations. A paragraph will serve to dispose of the question whether in like manner those passing the age of 30 should be removed from liability. In the first place such men are, physically and as a class, the most per- fectly fitted for military service. Practically those who at that age have not yet integrated themselves with the economic or domestic life of the Nation to such a substantial extent as to dictate their segrega- tion in a class more deferred than Class I are entitled to no consideration in this regard. The classification system automatically defers meritorious cases, and the rest ought not to be removed from liability. CHANGE OF ftTJOTA BASIS. We come next in our consideration of the new plan to one of its most significant incidents. As the law now stands, quotas are to be appor- tioned by a blind rule of population. This rule has already been fruitful of almost insurmountable diffi- culties. In the first place gross population includes aliens. Aliens are, by the terms of the law, entitled to exemption from draft. In districts with a large alien population this rule has resulted in a considerable re- duction of the citizen population, and in such regions as the Big Bend district of Texas this has resulted in a condition little short of calamitous. But the con- clusion to base the apportionment of quotas on citizen population is not to be accepted as a curing alternative. The opposing argument is readily demonstrable. As between two States with, let us say, 1,000,000 popula- tion, 100 per cent American and the other 50 per cent alien, a I'ule of citizenship apportionment of quotas would result in a withdrawal from the ail-American State just twice as great as the withdrawal from the 50 per cent hyphenate. Since the economic wealth of a State is bound up with its man power, and since man power is not to be computed according to citi- zenshii), the gross inequity and the certainly ensuing protest against any such rule are instantly apparent. Further, there is to be urged against the population rule the circumstance that there is no reliable cri- terion of population, since the last census is seven years old and since the most potent influences have been at work on the distribution of population since 1910. These influences were most potent among men of the draf table age; and since the Census Bureau's estimate was made on the registration as a basis the distribution of the first draft was admittedly but in- curably inequitable. The new classification system not only renders the old apportionment of quotas still more inequitable. It requires an absolute change to a new rule. If this Nation is to be regarded as a compacted whole (and it must be so regarded), and if the early classes rep- resent the men who could be taken with the least dis- turbance of peace-time normality (not only nation- ally but emphatically locally), then there is only one just basis for quotas to be called from any class, and that is the proportion of men in that class in the va- rious localities. This plan is too just, too even, and unassailable to require argument. If the classification is to be accepted, then the apportionment of quotas on the basis of the classification must be accepted. Any other rule would result in one board furnishing its quota from Class I, while immediately across the jurisdictional dividing line another board might easily be invading Class IV. This is too obvious to require discussion. The justice of an apportionment of quotas in proportion to the classification from which the quota is to be filled is unassailable, and the law should be amended along these lines. If these two amendments are promptly made; that is, if all men who have attained the age of 21 since June 5 are required to be registered and thereafter to be immediately classified, and if the law is amended to require the distribution of quotas in proportion to the number of men in any class from which the quota is called, then the problems of this office are already half solved — but not entirely solved, as shall appear immediately. SKILLED AND UNSKILLED LABOR POWER. The effect of the proposed amendment will be, then, to require that Class I be exhausted — not merely locally but nationally — before any inroads are made in Classes HEPOKT OF THE PKOVOST MARSHAL GENERAL. 37 II, III, or IV. If, as is earnestly hoped and confi- dently believed, all drafts in immediate prospect can be confined to Class I, then the entire supply of skilled farm labor and of labor appurtenant to every industry can be conserved intact, and our only remaining prob- lem is that of unskilled labor. This problem is not so simple as its statement might suggest. The line of demarcation between skilled and unskilled labor is not -always plainly marked; apart from this the supply of unsldlled labor is the very commodity that presents the most serious problem in the present aspect of the war. Unskilled labor is responsive to slight impulse and controlled by many causes. The relatively dispro- portionate prices rendered possible by the abnormal economic situation that has prevailed in the United States have been sufficient to withdraw miskilled labor from agricultural pursuits and to concenter it about the great industrial regions of the Nation to such an extent as to present a most difficult problem in national economics. The fact must be faced, in this report and elsewhere, that the present raw and un- skilled labor supply is insufficient to fill the Army while also maintaining industry and agriculture to the maximum effectiveness required by military neces- sity. As has been remarked before in this report, the instant recourse of every superficial student is to make the necessary adjustment at the expense of the Army. Smce the decision has been made to render this Nation militarily effective as a measure of self- preservation, the protagonists of this idea can fairly be charactei'ized as fatally shortsighted. The adjust- ment must be made in some other way. Such adjustment will involve the shifting of. labor power from one industi'y to another or from one group to another. There are here many obvious possibilities. For example, in commerce, in nonessential industries, and even in essential industries, there are thousands and hundreds of thousands of positions that could be filled by women and are filled by women in everj' other belligerent country. The positions of clerks, elevator boys, salesmen, porters, and the like, may be mentioned by way of illustration. As the means for effecting such readjustment, there are powerful indirect possibilities in the draft, but the dangers in its indiscriminate use are not to be overlooked in any careful survey of the situation. Moreover, other powerful influences to this end are available outside the draft, and so far removed from the jurisdiction of this office that they may not now be considered here. The vital and over- whelming facts of this problem ought to be addressed at once by some administrative authol-ity vested with sufficient power to act as well as to resolve. It is doubtful whether there is a more important problem before the country just now. One more important phase of the new regulations remains to be discussed. The deferment of men on account of their engagement in industry and agri- 2408 cultiire can be regarded solely as for the national in- terest. The interests of individuals or association of individuals can benefit incidentally but solely as the individual's interest happens to coincide with the in- terests of the Nation. Now, commonly it is to the interest of the Nation that men highly skilled in in- dustry remain at their normal employments, but such is not always the case. Our armies have urgent need for a small proportion of men highly skilled in certain industrial pursuits. Wherever such is the case the in- terests of the Nation are no longer served by leaving men in their civil pursuits, and since such men will, by the very terms of the new regulations, be found in deferred classes, the interests of the Nation require that in such cases the deferred classes be invaded and the necessary men withdraAvn. Ample provision for the exercise of this authority is found in the new regu- lations. It will be utilized with discrmiination and cai-e, but when the necessity arises the authority must be exercised expeditiously and acceded to without protest. PKOCEEDINGS UNDER THE NEW CLASSIFICATION. While what has been discussed covers the essentials of the revision of the regulations, many other consid- erations required the revision. Some 3,000,000 men had been called and their cases had received a tentative disposition. Nine million five hundred thousand men were registered on Juno 5 and fully 500,000 since that time. The fate of some 7,000,000 of the best and most virile men of the country remained suspended. It became forth- with necessary to assign to them a place in the na- tional defensive scheme, and both for the repose of the public mind and in justice to them it was necessary that their cases be resolved. Improvements in method are of very great impor- tance. The entire regulations have been compressed between the covers of a single volume. Instead of the involved and sometimes obscure verbiage of the original regulations, the new ones are expressed in almost colloquial and never obscure English, and the arrangement, annotation, and index are such that any required provision can be found readily and easily. The method for physical examination is improved, and a comprehensive appeal to the leaders of the medi- cal profession has been made in such a way that it is believed that the preliminary examination of regis- trants will be of a more exhaustive and scientific character than any physical examination that can be accorded at the mobilization camp. If this proves to be as effective as it pi-omises, the physical exami- nation at the mobilization camp will become a mere labor of supererogation. Each registrant is required to submit his answers to a catechism evolved from the experiences of the first draft and so thorough as to seax'ch his entire industrial and economic relation and ;>,> 38 EEPOET OF THE PKOVOST MARSHAL GENEHAL. to develop his answers in such a way as to compel the conclusion upon which his classification must be made. The entire legal profession has been enlisted, not as advocates presenting the necessarily one-sided view of a party in conti'oversy, but as assistants of the Selective-Service System engaged to present the merits of each case in its fair relation to the national prob- lem. The procedure is simplified and systematized to an extent which, according to the testimony of some 50 members of local and district boards, will reduce the mechanical labor 70 per cent. Evei'y administrative incident of the first draft, every failure, difficulty, and omission of the old regu- lations discerned by our experience thus far was con- sidered and attempted to be corrected in the new. The classification is at the date of this report in full progress. It is anticipated that it will be completed by February 15. When it is complete, a carefully prepared tabulation and index of it will be made in- Washington. We shall then know to the minutest detail the condition and the engagement of so much of the man power of tliis Nation as is within the draft age. In a military as well as in an industrial sense this index will be an invaluable thing. The control by the Government of the field of labor will have been rendered flexible, exact, and most powerf^d. By the jjreferment or deferment of any industry — complete, as in the present case of the shipbuilding industry, or partial, as in the present case of all other necessary industries — the labor problem can be controlled, ad- justments forced where right and proper that they should be forced, and in this manner this Nation, in respect of its control of that aspect of the labor prob- lem affected by military service, will be in the most ad- vantageous position ever occujjied by a belligerent power in this or any other war. The selective idea will have been carried to its uttermost practicable refinement. PART II. THE RESULTS OF CALLING AND SELECTION BY THE BOARDS. On November 7 a request was issued to all Local and District Boards to make return to the Provost Marshal General of the results, in numbers, of the calling and selection of men, and to report their experience in the administration of the Selective- Service Act. Tlus tedious but necessary task was achieved with a zealous promptness and thoroughness for which public thanks are due. The returns represented the state of the Local Board records on or about November 12, and of the District Board records on or about November 18. The number of Local Boards making returns was as fol- lows : Complete returns of results in figures, 4,341 ; in- complete returns, 80; no returns, 117; reports of ex- perience, 3,416; no reports of experience, 1,122. The number of District Boards making returns was as fol- lows: Complete returns of results in figures, 145; in- complete returns; 2; no returns, 3; reports of experi- ence, 140 ; no reports of experience, 10. The compila- tion of returns was completed on December 8.^ X. CALLS REQUIRED TO FILL THE FIRST DRAFT GUOTA OF 687,000. (I) PROPORTION OF REGISTRANTS CALLED. Table 1. 1. Total registrants, ages 21-30 years 2. Registi-ants not called by boards . . . 3. Eegistrants called by boards for hearing or examination , 586, 508 , 503, 559 Per cent. 100. 00 67.8-1 Note. — The above figures are of November 12, 1917 (approxi- mately), being the totals as reported from time to time to the Provost Marshal General's Office by tlie Local Board. In various boards the registration and calls for ex.iminatiou still 'Acknowledgment is made of the valuable services of Mr. C. P. Balch, statistician of the Chicago & North Western Railway Co., wlio was consulted in planning tlie mode of se- curing the statistics and was invited to take charge of the computing staff. continue on a small scale ; but no estimate can yet be given of the actual figures. Thus it appears that over 67 per cent of the regis- trants remain uncalled; and that for filling the first draft, the percentage of registrants called was 32.16 per cent. Appendix Table 1 shows how wide was the range of percentages in the several States. A chief reason for this variance was the variance in credits for enlist- ments ; for obviously a State whose net quota had been reduced by large enlistments did not need to call as many registrants in order to fill its quota. (H) PROPORTION OF CALLED PERSONS CERTIFIED BY BOARDS. But what portion of the number called were effec- tively ohfa/ned hy the hoards to fit the quota of 687,000 selectives? Table 2. Proportion of oertifled to called men. 1. Total men called by boards 2. Certified for service in the National Army 3. Appeals pending Nov. 18 (Table 38) . 4. No appeals pending 5. Remainder (rejected, exempted, and discharged) '1, 057, 363 16, 156 1, 041, 207 1 This figure is 4,082 in excess of the number actually returned by the boards in their reports, but their returns for Hue I (total called) and Hue 5 (total rejected, etc.) are presumed to be more reliable; and the balance of 4,082, necessary to make the sum of lines 5 and 2 tally with the total numtier called (line 1), has therefore been added. Note. — Tlie above figures for " Certified for military service " (Table 2, line 2) are of November 12, or about that date, and therefore are slightly higher than tlie ultimate figures, be- cause they include the cases pending at that date on appeal before the district boards. The total appeals pending on No- vember 12 were approximately 16,1.5G (Table 2, line 3). Of this number, perhaps 7,000 should be deducted from the fig- ures in table 2, line 2, to represent the additional persons likely to be discharged or exempted finally, after being certi- fied originally by the local boards. The same number, 7i000, should be added to line 5, of Table 2. Furthermore, the figures of Table 2, line 2. are of course higher than the numbers actually destined for immediate 40 BEPOET OF THE PEOVOST MARSHAL GENEEAL. CHART TO TABLE 1. PER CENT OREGON WYOMING DIST. OF COLUMBIA SOUTH DAKOTA. MAINE KANSAS NEW HAMPSHJREj IOWA lVERMONT JDAHO ^mississippi :rhode island. nebraska wisconsin louisiana virginia west virginia missouri. maryland. UTAH MINNESOTA. ALABAMA ■Tennessee; colorado north dakota INDIANA 'ARKANSAS FLORIDA SOUTH CAROLINA GEORGIA NORTH CAROLIN/! NEW MEXICO KENTUCKY MONTANA MASSACHUSETTS WASHINGTON DELAWARE TEXAS ILLINOIS MICHIGAN OHIO NEW YORK PENNSYLVANIA NEW JERSEY OKLAHOMA CONNECTICUT CALIFORNIA. NEVADA ARIZONA :>gistrants, by States. Y//A BEGISTEBED BUT NOT CALLED REPOET OF THE PBOVOST MARSHAL GENERAL. 41 service, because tliey include a large numlier of men not to be ordered to report under the first draft (Table 3). Most boards certified a considerable number in excess of their quota, so as to be on the safe side and have a supply ready to fill vacancies caused by the reversals of rulings on appeal, rejections at camp, etc. The percentage of such excess of men certified over men due to be ordered to camp under the first ilraft is 35.03 per cent or 370,363 in all. 1. Thus it appears that, so far as the board via- chinery could effect this, the calls (up to November 12) had provided a maximum of 1,057,363 men (line 2) ; i. e. an average of 292 registered men were called in order to produce, at most, 100 certified men for the service. Appendix Table 2 shows the variances by States. 2. What does this signify for future drafts? It signifies that if the same board j)rocedure were ad- hered to, and applying the ratio of 2.92 to 1, the num- ber yet uncalled (6,503,.599) would yield approxi- mately a maximum of 2,2-27,246 additional men certi- fied for the service. 3. Comparing the number called with the quota fixed for the first draft, we find: Table 3. Total called compared with quota. 1. Total number called 3, 082, 949 2. Net quota required 687, 000 3. Numlser certified for service 1, 057, 363 Thus, the percentage of quota to total called was 22.28 per cent. In other words, for every 100 of re- quired quota, 448 men were called, although the call of that number produced 154 certified men. (Ill) PROPORTION OF PERSONS CALLED WHO FAILED TO APPEAR. Persons called by the boards for examination who failed to afpear were nevertheless certified by the boards for military service. The figures of those certi- fied for service (Table 2, L. 2), therefore, include some who failed to appear. How numerous were these men who failed to appear on call ? The figures are : Proportion of called to appeared. 1. Total persons called by local boards ' 3, 082, 949 2. Failed to appear for examination 1 252, 294 3. Appeared 2,830,655 Thus, 8.18 per cent of men called arc recorded as " Failed to appear." Appendix, Table 4, shows the figures by States. 1. This group who failed to appear includes, how- ever, at least three classes of persons who were not "slackers": (1) Many who had enlisted or been com- missioned in the meantime, since registration, but NUMBER OF MEN CEKTIFIED PER 100 CALLED, BY STATES. -< f^. MEX. 1)0 OKLA. A .?. ,N^-- ri 3^ 1 59 42 EEPORT OP THE PROVOST MAIKSAL GEKEHAL. neglected to notify the boards of their military status and claim exemption, as they should have done; (2) some who had died; and (3) many who were trans- ferred to other boards for physical examination or for the hearing of claims, but were inadvertently carried on the books of their original board as " failed to appear." Class (1) may be estimated at 85,000. Probably tlie entire June and July enlisters failed to notify their boards (which were being organized, but issued no calls until August), and a large proportion also of the enlisters during August, September, and October. Class (2) may be estimated at about 750. Class (3) may have reached 15,000 ; no figures are yet available. This leaves some 150,000 to be accounted for. Were they all " slackers " ? Undoubtedly much the greatest part of this 150,000 is represented by aliens; the re- ports of the local boards explicitly show this. Of these aliens, many left this country to enlist in their own armies; this was especially true of English and Canadians. Many other aliens failed to appear through ignorance of their duties, or through non- receipt of notices due to the mischances inherent in the spelling of foreign names or change of occupation and residence. Many aliens residing near the national bor- der lines, north and south, slipped over the line, espe- cially during June and July, and failed to appear, even though they could have claimed exemption as aliens.^ The total of these groups, as shown by the local boards' report, may be roughly estimated at 100,000 or more. The remainder, representing the real " slackers," thus numbered 50,000 or less, or an average of less than 10 for each local board.- 2. Those who failed to appear were reported to the municipal police or to the Federal district attorney by some local boards. But the pressure of daily business at the boards made it impossible to do this systemati- cally. Moreover, since many nonappearances were due to ignorance or inadvertence, since the larger number were due to the men having enlisted without notify- 'This i>ai-t of the story can plainly be seen in Appendix Table 4, where the highest percentages of "failed to appear" are found in Arizona, California, Florida. Lonislana. Montana, Nevada. Now Mexico, and Texas : the sinlilar high percentage-s in Coiinccticiit. Illinois. Wis- consin, and Wyoming are explainnhlc on other gwninds. = The returns of the State adjutants general, ni.ide to The Adjutant General of the Army on Form 14C-I! (as retiulred by supplemental regulation No. 11 show, .ns the net uumlicr of men who tailed to appear and unaccounted for. 4C,8.51. These returns were made up by compil- ing the total returus ot the local boards made through the district boaids to the State adjutant generals on Form 146-A, and by then deducting the numbers of those men who had in the meantime reported for service, and by making return of the remainder to The -•Adjutant General of the Army. Though this method ot reckoning differs from that above set forth in accounting for the 252,000 borne on the records ot the local boards as " failed to appear," yet the net result of I he two reckonings, viz, 47,000 and 50,000, respectively, does not substantially vary. 'ing their boards, and since in any event the delinquents were certified for military sei'vice imder the regula- tions and would become duly subject to service when the time arrived for issuing orders to report for en- trainment, it was therefore deemed wise to undertake no general legal measui-e against them at this interim stage. The Department of Justice, however, has se- cured reports from the several United States judicial districts showing the total cases brought to their atten- tion. The figures (as shown by United States Depart- ment of Justice records) are : Reported for faiUn-e to appear 16, 525 Arrested 2, 152 (IV) PROPOUTION OF CAMP STRENGTH OBTAINED. But the board's macbinci-y was not the final process. Of these certified for service (Table 2, line 2), some failed to appear for mobilization, some others were re- jected at camp on physical reexamination, some were awaiting orders to report for mobilization, and some were or will be sent back from camp on account either of reversals of ruling by appeals boards or sundry errors. The figures are : Table 5. Camp strength compared with total cortlfiod. 1. Total certified finally for service 2. Appeals pending and Jikely to be granted (Table 18) (eat.) 3. Failed to appear for examination (originally listed — 252,294, less subsequently reported (est.) 20,000) 4. Failed to report (1) at entrainment 5. Failed to report (2) at camp 6. Rejected at camp for physical disqualification Total 7. Net reported and accepted in camp as of Nov. 20 8. Awaiting orders to report on. Nov. 20 (est.). Total 232, 294 13, 128 2,421 29, 709 285, 451 383, 675 388, 237 In line 3, however, are included some 85,000 or more men who enlisted in various branches of the service without notifying their boards formally (Table 4). Tlie.se men are therefore somewhere in the military service in addition to the numbers in the National Army camps (line 7). Thus a shortage (lines 2-6) of 285,451 (estimated as of November 20) is to be subtracted from the total certified for service, giving the total ]Dotential camp strength. 1. Is this teTTvporary shortage, represented by lines 2-6, a feature peculiar to the first draft, or must it b» REPORT OF THE PROVOST MARSHAL GENERAL. 43 reckoned with as a permanent factor in future drafts? That is, will there always be such a discount to be made from the gross number finally certified? The failures to appear will in future be largely lessened, the organization being better perfected. The failures to report will be lessened by more complete coopera- tion by the police. The phj-sical rejections at camp are perhaps a permanent element. The discharges, on appeal may not occur to such an extent for future drafts. On the whole, the percentage of shortage will be much lower in future drafts. 2. Comparing the quota required to be raised with the number actually accepted in camp on November 20, we find a discrepancy : Table 6. Quota and camp comparisons. 1. Quota required 2. Number in camp on Nov. 12 3. Shortage 687, 000 383, 675 303, 325 1. This shortage was of course temporary only, for the boards will continue to order men up for mobili- zation and into camp until the quota is finally filled. 2. The reason for the shortage on November 20 was the unpreparedness of the camps. The date origi- nally fixed for mobilization into camp was September 5. On that date, and ever since that date, the local boards had in readiness large numbers of men in ex- cess of the numbers actually ordered to be entrained. The selective-service administration produced the men on schedule time ; the delay has been solely due to the delayed readiness in camp construction and equipment at various points. 3. There will, however, always be at intervals a small difference between required quota and men actu- ally and permanently in camp. Interim enlistments and commissions represent only a credit to each board on its quota, and thus a slight discrepancy will always exist between this nominal and actual man power at camp. "Wlien registered and called men are enlisted or commissioned in the Military or Naval Service, their papers only are forwarded to camp by local boards; such are termed "paper men," being in the service elsewhere, and appearing only on the records of such camps to which their respective local boards would have sent them ; therefore the camp quota (rep- resenting the National Army) is temporarily short, but the national quota with these items counted in (representing additions to the war strength of the Regular Army and the National Guard) will ulti- mately be filled. (V) COLORED CITIZENS UNDER THE FIRST DRAFT. The following table shows the number of colored citizens who were affected by the first selective draft : 1. Total of all registrants... 2. Total of colored citizens Thus it appears that the total registration of citi- zens of African descent was nearly 8 per cent of the entire (composite) registration. 2. Wliat proportion of colored citizens registered were called by the boards? Colored citizens called. Number. Ratio to colored registered. Ratio to white registered. 1. Total colored citizens regis- tered 737, 626 8, 848, 882 208, 953 2, 873, 996 2. Total whites reristered 3. Colored citizens called 28.33 4 Whites called 32 48 Thus it is shown that 28.33 per cent of such regis- tered colored citizens were called by the local boards for examination as to availability for service, in con- trast with 32.48 per cent of white registrants. Ap- pendix Table 8 shows this variance for the respec- tive States. The difference is apparently due to the circumstance that in some States the roster of colored and white was kept separate, and that the call sometimes proceeded more rapidly with one than with the other. 3. Wliat proportion of colored citizens called were certified for service? Tabi£ 0. Colored citizens certified for service. Number. Ratio to colored called. Ratio to white called. 208, 953 2, 873, 996 133, 25G 2,162,783 75, 697 711,213 3. Colored citizens re- jected, exempted, 63.77 .... 4. Whites rejected, ex- empted, and dis- 75.25 5. Colored citizens certi- 36.23 6. Whites certified for serv- ice 44 EEPOBT OF THE PROVOST MARSHAL GENEBAL. Thus it appears that out of every 100 colored citi- zens called 36 were certified for ser\'ice and 64 were rejected, exempted, or discharged; whereas out of evei-y 100 whites called 25 were certified for service and 75 were rejected, exempted, or discharged. Appendix Table 9 shows the vai'iant figures for the several States. The explanation of this difference can not be yet definitely ascertained, until a more thorough study of the records becomes possible. The difference is prob- ably not due to either a difference in physical quali- fications, nor to a difference in the applicability of the several legal grounds for exemption and discharge. So far as the several regions of the country are con- cerned, the lesser ratio for colored to white certified appears mainly, but not exclusively, in the Southern States. 4. If the same processes were adhered to, as in the first draft, what disposition would be made of the remaining uncalled colored registrants ? Table 10. Colored citizens in later drafts. 1. Colored not called for examination 2. Exemptions, discharges, and rejec- tions (estimated) 3. Selectives for National Army (esti- mated) Number. 528, 673 337, 134 191, 539 Ratio to colored not called. 100. 00 63.77 30.23 Thus it appears that, if future drafts were to be conducted by the same processes of selection, we might reasonably expect to increase our National Array strength by only 191,539 of the uncalled registered colored citizens still to be examined; the balance, 337,131, being probably covered by exemptions, dis- charges, or rejections. (VI) CAUSES FOR EXCESS OF MEN CALLED OVER MEN OBTAINED BY BOARDS. Turning back now to the number of called persons not certified for service by the boards (Table 2, line 6), and seeking for the causes thereof, they fall into two general classes: Physical rejections, and legal ex- emptions or discharges. These two causes were dis- tributed as follows : Table 11. Causes for nonacceptanco. 1. Total men called 2. Total not certified 3. Rejected phyei- cally by local boards 4. Exempted or dis- charged on claims 6. Total certified (either fi- nally or awaiting ap- peal) 3, 082, 949 2,025,586 730, 756 1, 294, 830 23.70 41.99 36.08 63.92 1. Thus of the total persons not certified it appears that physical disqualification furnished 36 per cent of the total, while legal exemptions and discharges furnished 64 per cent. 2. Taking the total men called for examination or hearing (Table 11, line 1), it appears that the -per- centage rejected for physical disqualification was 24 per cent, and that the percentage exempted or dis- charged on claims was 42 per cent. XI. REJECTIONS FOE PHYSICAL DISaUAIIFICATION. Taking first among these two general causes for rejection that of physical disqualification, we note that the foregoing figures show us merely the relative importance of this ground of rejection to the other grounds, but do not throw any light on the absolute physical condition of draftable men. 1. For this purpose we must examine the proportion of phj'sical rejections to all persons physically ex- amined. The figures are : Table 12. Physical rejections. Number. Per cent. 1. Total examined physically by 2, 510, 706 730,756 1,779,950 100 00 2. Total rejected by local boards .... 3. Total accepted by boards 29.11 70.89 Thus it appears that the percentage of physical dis- qualification to all men examined was approximately 29 per cent. Appendix 12 shows the variant figures for the several States. During the Civil War this percentage approximated 26 per cent (report of the Provost Marshal General, Part I, p. 252, Tables 2, 8, 14, 20, 25). In view of the great advance since that date in standards of medical diagnosis and physical perfection, the foregoing figures indicate a decided improvement in national physical condition during the past two generations. The Civil War percentages were : Per cent. First draft 31. 69 Second draft 24. 76 Third draft 24. 95 Fourth draft 13. 42 Average for all 25. 74 There was evidently a great relaxation in strictness of examination as the war proceeded. It should be noted, too, that the war had been in progress for some time before the first draft was made, and that the men later examined probably fell below the physical aver- age of the men available at the openftig of the war. 2. Comparing the physical rejections with the total men called, we find : KEPOKT OF THE PROVOST MARSHAL GENEBAL. 45 Physical rejections a Dd total called. Nnintwr. Ratio to total called. 1. Total men called ami hearing. Examined and icai prounds. for examination 3, 082, 949 730, 756 64,352 265, 597 252, 294 1, 779, 950 2. rejected on phys- 3. 4 t required bylaw. ii.erwise post- r examination - iiuination 1.76 .■..i,„V, 8.62 8.18 57.74 5. 6. Ar. :■■ 8. The causes for rejection, when ascertainable, wiJ] be of great sociological and medical value. But. in the present emergency, the time and labor to cxainino in detail two million and a half records can not be spared. 4. But the physical examination at the local boards was further supplemented by a second examination of the accepted men at the camp by camp surgeons. What was the result ? The difference between this percentage in line 2 and that of Table 12, line 2, is due of course to the fact that not all persons called were physically examined. The persons called but not physically examined were (1) those whose physical examination was postponed un- der regulations, .section 16, because they claimed cer- tain exemptions; (2) those who failed to appear, and were there certified for service without physical ex- amination; and (3) those who were called and heard as to legal claims, so as to have an ample supply of men ready in excess of quota, but were not physically examined, pending decision as to their need to. fill quota. RATIO OF PHYSICALLY QUALIFIED TO PHYSICALLY EXAMINED, BY STATES. Physical rejections at camp. Number. Percent arrived in catup. Per cent ar- rived from local boards. 1. Examined by local boards to obtain the number in line 3 561, ono 413, 384 393, 384 22, 989 20, 000 6,720 383, 675 29, 709 2. Arrived in camp (to Nov. 20) . 3. Men passed by local boards 4. Rejected by camp sur- geons (estimated) 6. Men not examined by local 6. Rejected by camp Bur- geons (estimated) 7. Total accepted in camp (to No 20) .. . 92.84 7.16 8. Total rejected at camp (to Nov.20) I I LESS THAN 60 PER CENT \//'/-J^ 60 TO 65 PER CENT eza 80 PER CENT ANO OVE 46 EEPORT OF THE PEOVOST MAKSHAL GENEKAL. (a) The percentage 7.16 in line 8, however, is not the criterion of the superior strictness of the camp sur- geons over the local boards, because the men arriving at camp included a large number who had failed to appear at aU before the local boards (line 5). These men had been certified to the district boards and re- ported to the State adjutant general (Form 146A), and then had been searched out and sent forward di- rectly to camp hj the adjutant general without prior physical examination at all ; thus, obviously, they must not be included in compai'ing the revisory work of the camp surgeons with that of the local boards. An in- spection of a sample series of records indicated that this class of men accounted for about 1 in every four rejections. The proper basis for comparison is, there- fore, the ratio of rejections by camp surgeons of men already physically examined by local boards to the total of such men arrived in camp. (b) This comparison (line 4) shows that the per- centage of men accepted by local boards who did not measure up to the standards of the camp surgeons was only 5.8 per cent. This small figure is a remarkable testimony to the efficiency of the local board sui'geons. Moreover, as the 393,000 men in line 3 represent only the acceptances (70 per cent) out of a group of 561,000 examined, and as the 23,000 rejected at camp (line 4) are only 4 per cent of that number, it may be said that the amount of additional corrective cidling effected by the camp surgeons' labors was 4 per cent on the whole mass examined. (e) Rumors here and there in the public press stated that the camp surgeons had discovered, among the men accepted by the local boards, some with glass eyes, some with cork legs, and some with other obvious dis- qualifications. If such men were found, no disparage- ment is involved for the local board surgeons; for it is safe to assert that such grossly defective persons came from the contingent of about 20,000 men who had never appeared before the local boards, but had been gathered up by the adjutants general and sent direct to the camps. There is no groimd for supposing that the local board surgeons were either incompetent or careless to that extent. The spirit of their practice was to make all intendments in favor of the Govern- ment; but nothing permits us to suppose that they would or did send to camp any men with cork legs or glass ej'es. [d) Doubtless the local boards varied extremely in the strictness of their examinations. But so also, it seems, did the camp surgeons. Table 14A shows that the percentage of rejections at camp varied between 0.72 per cent and 11.87 per cent; and as the physical condition of the men from the different regions can not entirely account for this, it must be attributable in part to differences of strictness in the examinations by the camp surgeons: Speciflc camp showings for physical rejections. States contributing to camp. l^^ii bc""'- jected. Per cent of arrived. 1. Camp Custer 2. Camp Devens 3. CampDix 4. Camp Dodge 5. Camp Gordon 6. Camp Grant 7. Camp Jackson 8. Camp Lee. 9. Camp Lewis 10. Camp Meade 11. Camp Pike 12. Camp Riley 13. Camp Sherman... 14. Camp Taylor 15. CampTra\TS 16. Camp Upton Mich., Wis Conn., Me., Mass., N. H.,N. Y., R. I., Vt. DeL,N.J.,N.Y... 111., Iowa, Minn., N. Dak. Ala., Ga., Tenn 111 Wis 17, 487 36, 082 19, 804 20, 505 19, 935 26, 658 17, 754 36, 938 46, 313 35, 971 24, 389 38, 975 9,850 27, 903 32, 746 31, 423 1,660 4,281 1,573 0» 1,556 1,148 1,975 920 5,095 2,245 1,819 281 1,012 2,143 993 2,318 9.49 11.87 7.94 7.80 4.30 Fla'.,N.C.,S.C.... Pa.,Va., W. Va.... Cal., Idaho, Mont., Nov., Or eg., Utah, Wash., Wyo. D. 6., Md., Pa., Tenn. Ala., Ark., La., Miss. Ariz., Colo., Kans., Mo., Nebr., N. Mex., S. Dak. Ohio Pa 11.12 2.49 n.oo 6.24 7.46 .72 10.27 I]l.,Ind., Ky Okla Tex 7.68 3 03 N. Y.' 7.38 17 Totals '442,733 29, 709 i accounts for the diileronco between this 5. But were the Surgeon General's rules for physi- cal examination, as set forth in the directions to the local boards, stricter than necessary for securing effi- cient fighting men? On this point the civilian sur- geons have expressed variant opinions. A large ma- jority consider that the physical requirements are not too exacting. But a considerable nimaber deem the requirements too strict in many respects, notably as to the weight-and-height relation, teeth, eyes, and feet, and contend that the regulations as strictly applied tend to exclude many capable and efficient men. For example, one board cited a case of exclusion for flat- foot of a man who had for many consecutive seasons endured the hardships of a guide's vocation in the Canadian forests; and the prevalence of flat-foot among sturdy negroes of the South was frequently commented on. 6. Was there any extensive attempt at deception of the local board surgeons by registrants called for ex- amination ? It is gratifying to report that falsification was at- tempted to only a slight and negligible extent. Here and there a board reports a locality as showing 50 per cent of attempted falsification ; but these instances were sporadic, and represent only some local obliquity of morals. 7. Of the various grounds for rejection, which were the most common? It must be left to the future to study accurately the valuable mass of data now latent in the records. Time has sufficed only to examine a BEPORT OF THE PKOVOST MARSHAL GENERAL. 47 small group of the records of rejections; 10,000 men ■were represented, spread over eight camps. The spe- cific source of defect sliowing the largest percentage ■was eyes; and the next largest, teeth. The figures for the principal causes of rejection are as follows : Causes for phj-sical rejections. 1. Total number of cases of physical rejec- tions considered 2. Alcoholism and drug habit 3. Physical undevelopment 4. Teeth 5. Blood vessels 6. Bones 7. Digestive system 8. Ear 9. Eye 10. Joints 11. Muscles 12. Respiratory 13. SUn 14. Flat foot 15. Genito-urinary (nonvenereal) 16. Genito-urinary (venereal) 17. Heart disease 18. Hernia 19. Mentally deficient 20. Nervous disorder (general and local) 21. Tuberculosis 22. IJndcrweight 23. Ill defined or not specified 24. Not stated 10, 258 79 41 G 871 191 304 2,224 0.77 4.06 8.50 1.86 2.96 .80 5.94 21.68 3.37 .64 1.56 1.15 3.65 1.39 4.27 5.87 7.47 4.53 3.77 5.37 ;9i 7.89 8. As between ui'han and rural residents, the figures throw an interesting light on the much-discussed ques- tion of the relative physical condition of country and city boys. Selection was made of a typical set of cities of 40,000 to 500,000 population, having no large ele- ment of foreign inmiigrants, and distributed over 10 different States (Alabama, Arkansas, Calif oi-nia, Colo- rado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, and Texas), and a corresponding set of counties of similar total size located in the same States, and containing no city of 30,000 population ; the total number of registrants represented was 315,000. The comparison results as follows: Table 16. Urban and rural rejections. 1. Urban areas, total persona physically ex- amined 2. Accepted 8. Rejected 4. Rural areas, total persons physically examined 6. Accepted 6. Rejected 35,017 25,048 9,969 44,462 32,030 12,432 The result, therefore, is virtually a tie for the country boy and the city boy. XII. EXEMPTION AND DISCHARGE IN GENERAL It has been seen that the percentage of all called per- sons who were rejected on claim of exemption or dis- charge was 61 per cent, totaling 1,294,830 (Table 11, line 4). Before examining the several grounds for such re- jections it is necessary to note (a) the mode of comput- ing this total, and (i) the relation of claims made to claims granted. (I) MODE OF COMPUTING EXEMPTIONS AND DISCHARGES. To ascertain the total exemptions and discharges, the nmnbcr granted by the local boards must be increased by the numbers later granted by the district boards and by the President. The figures are: Exemptions and discharges. Number. Per cent. 1 Total of all exemptions and discharges. . . Exemptions and discharges by local 1, 294, 830 1,161,206 78, 829 63, 843 952 2. 3. Discharges hy district boards on ap- peal (as of Nov 18) G 09 4. 5. Discharges by district boards on oc- cupational claims (as of Nov. 18).. Discharges by President on appeal (as of Dec. 16) 4.1G 07 These figures are slightly short of the facts, because of the cases still pending (on November 18) in the district boards, and (December 15) on appeal to the President (lines 2, 3, 4). The po.ssible luimbor of pending appeals that maj' be granted is projcctcii in the following table : Table 18. 1. Appeals pending before district boards Nov. 18 (estimated) 2. Appeals (44.96 per cent) likely to be granted (Table 38) 3. Appeals pending before President Dec. 15 4. Appeals (7.18 per cent) likely to be granted (Table 40) 5. Total pending appeals likely to be granted (lines 2 and 4) 6. Exemptions and discharges already granted (Table 10) 7. Grand total of exemptions and dis- charges granted (estimated) (lines 5 and 6) 8,794 631 Probable total of disi harges granted. 1, 291, 830 1,302,729 48 REPOET OF THE PKOVOST MAESHAL GENEPuiL. (II) RELATION OF TOTAL PERSONS CALLED TO CLAIMS MADE AND CLAIMS GRANTED. Two questions here must be answered: What pro- portion of i)crsons made claims of exemption or dis- charge? What proportion of their claims were granted? The first of these inquiries affects the popular will- ingness to serve at any sacrifice. The second inquiry involves both the popular willingness to make ground- less claims and the boards' laxness or overstrictness in granting or refusing them. The figures are: Table 19. 1. Total persons called 2. Tiital claims made 3. Total claims granted . . . 4. Total claima made to Uical boards 5. Claims gi'anted 6. Total claima made to district boards 7. Claims granted 3, 082, 949 1,500,570 1, 215, 049 1,419,678 1, ICl, 206 50.62 39.41 46. 05 37.67 77. 81.79 '38.'2i 1. Thus it appears that 50 in every 100 persons called made a claim of exemption or discharge. It further appears (Appendix Table 19) that the State where the highest percentage of claims was filed in local boards was Kentiickj', and the lowest was Montana. The reports of the local boards show clearly that in general the community has cordially and loyally sup- ported the boards, and the individuals summoned for service have willingly accepted the duty to serve with- out attempting to strain the uttermost limits of legal privilege in order to escape service. Nevertheless a few communities appear to have endeavored to abuse the exemption privilege; these communities, however, being widely scattered. On the other hand, many communities have made a high record for patriotism by proudly declining to avail themselves of their legal privileges. Appendix Table 45 shows the location of these banner communities. In general, the local boards were distinctly less favorabljr disposed than was the public to recognizing claims for exemption or discharge. 2. It appears that for 77 in every 100 persons claiming the cl-ai?ns were granted, i. e., for 23 in every 100 the claims were either groundless or were ruled upon overstrictly by the boards. It further appears (Appendix Table 19) that the State having the highest percentage of claims granted by local boards was Connecticut, and the lowest was Mississippi. As to the difference of result in local and district boards, it appears that the district boards either were more strict or were more assailed by groundless claims than the local boards. A pronounced majority of the local boards report that unfounded claims were few and that exaggeration was not serious. Many boards, on the other hand, say that 40 or 50 per cent of the claims were unfounded or exaggerated; reports that 25 per cent of the claims were exaggerated are common. A«ifew boards confess that they administered the ex- emption provisions in a liberal spirit, especially in de- pendency cases, but in general the boards declare that they interpreted the provisions strictly and gave the Government the benefit of a doubt, convinced that this policy was supported by the people. The public in some districts appears to have been more favorably disposed to dependency exemptions than to those resting on agricultural or industrial grounds. The reason for the latter classes of exemp- tions were not always clearly understood ; for example, the exemption of a prosperous farmer having large property was likely to be resented. 3. Is any improvement feasible in the mode of in- quiring into the truth of claims? Nearly all of the boards believed that improvement is feasible. Twenty-five boards say that the new regulations and questionnaire meet their criticisms of the old mode, or at least constitute a great improve- ment. The suggestions of many other boards indicate that they had not yet seen the new regulations. Thus a number of boards recommended that they be given authority to summon and examine witnesses, while other.? suggest that affidavit forms in dependency cases be elaborated, much as they have been in the new regulations. 4. A further question has some interest. Wliat pro- portion of men noio certified into the National Army went willingly or unwillingly? The actual state of mind, of course, can not be known. But the filing of an unsuccessful claim for exemption or discharge is at least an index of unwillingness, and the figures here show as follows: Table 20. Inroluntary conscripts. 1. Total certified for service in the Na- tional Army 2. Involuntary conscripts (failed to appear, or filed unsuccessful claims for exemption or dis- charge) 3. Voluntary conscripts (filed no claima for exemption or discharge). 418, 309 639, 054 39.56 60.44 EEPORT OF THE PROVOST MARSHAL GENERAL. 49 CHART A TO TABLE 19. PER CENT f^LABAMA, j .'ARIZONA 'ARKANSASX 'CALIFORNI/i. COLORADO. CONNECTICUT^ DELAWARE DIST. OF COLUMBIA FLORIDA GEORGlAj IDAHO [ILLINOIS] INDIANA. ;iOWA KANSAS. KENTUCKY7 LOUISIANA, MAINE MARYLAND MASSACHUSETTS MICHIGAN MINNESOTA. MISSISSiPPlT MISSOURI MONTANA'\ NEBRASKA NEVADA NEW HAMPSHIRE NEW JERSEY NEW MEXICO) NEW YORK NORTH CAROLINA NORTH DAKOTA OHIO OKLAHOMA OREGON PENNSYLVANIA RHODE ISLAND SOUTH CAROLINA SOUTH DAKOTA ^TENNESSEEj TEXAS UTAH VERMONT^ VIRGINIA WASHINGTON' V/EST VIRGINIA, WISCONSIN yVYOMlNGj Ratio of persons filing claims in local boards to persons called, by States. ■■claims filed ^ CALLED BUT NO CLAIMS FILED REPOKT OF THE PKOVOST MARSHAL GEXERAI CHART B TO TABIE 19. PER CENX ALABAMA ARIZONA ARKANSAS. CALIFORNIA COLORADO CONNECTICUT DELAWARE DIST. OF COLUMBIA FLORIDA GEORGIA, IDAHO ILLINOIS 'INDIANA IOWA KANSAS KENTUCKY' LOUISIANA. .MAINE maryland massachusetts lmichigan minnesota^ :mississippi [missouri ;montana. nebraska NEVADA NEW HAMPSHIRE' NEW JERSEY NEW MEXICO. NEW YORK NORTH CAROLINA NORTH DAKOTA OHIO OKLAHOMAa OREGON ;PENNSYLVANIA, RHODE ISLAND SOUTH CAROLINA SOUTH DAKOTA TENNESSEE iTEXAS UTAH Vermont virginia .washington west virginia wisconsin WYOMING Katio of claims granted in local boards to claims made, by States. ^^ CLAIMS GRANTED CLALT/rS MADE KEPOEI OF THE PROVOST MARSHAL GENERAL. 51 (III) RESPECTIVE GROUNDS FOR EXEMPTION AND DIS- CHARGE BY LOCAL BOARDS. Coming now to the several grounds for the granting of claims of exemption or discharge we find them thus for the local boards: Grounds for exemption and discharge. Number. Ratio to total claims. 1, 161, 206 859, 150 228,452 67, 716 3,887 2,001 2. Dependency (sec. 20 A) 73.99 3. Alienage (sec 18 eand/) 19 07 4. Vocations (sec. IS a, b, c, d, sec. 20 a, 6,c, d, e.f, (!) 5. Religious creed (sec. 20 i) 5.83 .34 6. Moral unfitness (sec 21) .17 It thus appears that dependency furnished 74 per cent of the rejections and alienage furnished nearly 20 per cent, or together made 93f per cent of the whole. These .several grounds may now be examined sex^a- rately. XIII. DEPENDENCY AS A GROUND FOR REJECTION. 1. A first inquiry would be : What proportion of all persons having dependents sought discharge on that ground? This question can not be answei-ed — partly because the needful examination of individual files has not been feasible in the limited time available, and partly because most persons not malsing such claim refrain from disclosing the dependency of their fami- lies. 2. A second inquiry is: How far was dependency a less extensive ground for discharge than marriage woukl have been if the law had made marriage alone a sufficient gi-ound? The figures are: Table 22. Dependency exclusions or discharges. Number. Percent of total persons called. Percent of married persons called. Ratio between married depend- ency discharges m^rrfed accept- 1. Total persons called 2. Total married persons called 3, 082, 949 1, 500, 056 163, H5 1, 336, 941 748, 762 48.66 3. Married persons ac- 10.87 89.13 18 4. Married persons ex- empted or dis- charged on all grounds 5. Married persons discharged for dependency of 82 Thus the first draft gained 163,115 of the total call by not having marriage alone as the ground of dis- charge. But this figure is a little too high, because not ail married persons would have claimed discharge. More significantly, the ratio of married persons ac- cepted (line 3) to married persons discharged for de- pendency (line 5) was 18 per cent and 82 per cent, respectively, showing that dependency was to that degree a less extensive ground of discharge than mar- riage alone would have been. Table 22 in the Ap- pendix shows the variation in the several States. These figures demonstrate the wisdom of Congress in establishing dependency, rather than marriage alone, as the ground for discharge; this provision of the statute has saved for the Army some 103,000 men, or 18 per cent over the number discharged by the op- posit« provision. And that this distinction of the statute commands the solid support of public opinion, after a fair and full trial, is equally plain. In answering the question, " Should marriage be substituted as the ground for dis- charge':!" an overwhelming majority of the boards, both local and district, are opposed to marriage alone as a ground for discharge; apparently the remainder would favor marriage-and-children as the ground. Those boards who at the time of reporting had studied the new regulations of November expressed their satis- faction with the way in which this subject is there dealt with. In administering the statutory rule there was an en- tire lack of uniformity in the action of the local boards. Many discharged all or virtually all married men (see chart to Table 25) ; some discharged married men with children; some held many married men with children. Probably there were as man}^ criticisms of the local boards for holding too many married men as for discharging too many. There is no doubt that a large number of local boards in the aggregate did discharge virtually all married men. But this number fell far short of a ma- jority of the boards, it seems reasonably certain. Some shifting of policy was caused by the President's statement late in August; after its issue there was a greater liberality toward mai'ried men. By " married men " the boards usually refer to men married prior either to April G or May 18, 1917. 3. A further inquiry is : Which forms of dependency were the most common ? The figures are : Specific dependency classes. 1. Total discharges for dependency 2. Wife, or wife and children 3. Widowed parent 4. Infirm parent 5. Motherless child 6. Minor orphan brothers and sisters. 859, 150 743, 141 56,002 49, 340 5,621 5,046 86.50 6.51 5.75 .63 52 EEPOET OF TUE PEOVOST MARSHAL GK: CHAET TO TABLE 22. PER CENT ALABAMA ARIZONA ARKANSAS CAlLIFORr COLORADO CONNECTICUT' DELAWARE PIST. OF COLUiyiBIA FLORIDA GEORGIA' IDAHO ILLINOIS INDIANA IOWA KANSAS KENTUCKY) LOUISIANA MAINE MARYLAND' MASSACHUSETTS MICHIGAN MINNESOTA^ MISSISSIPPI MISSOURI MONTANA NEBRASKA NEVADA NEW HAMPSHIRE NEW JERSEY NEW MEXICO NEW YORK NORTH CAROLINA NORTH DAKOTA OHIO OKLAHOMA OREGON PENNSYLVANIA RHODE ISLAND SOUTH CAROLINA SOUTH DAKOTA TENNESSEE TEXAS UTAH VERMONT VIRGINIA WASHINGTON WEST VIRGINIA. WISCONSIN WYOMING Y///(///)i///^///)c^//)i/////'yA y//v. 2^^^^^^^ z y/zmw/' 199 Ratio of mnrried accepted to married discharged for depeiiileiiij'. MABBIED ACCEPTED rTrrn, MARRIED DISCH-VRGED l^:^:^^ FOR DEPENDENCY REPORT OP THE PROVOST MARSHAL GENERAL. 4. AuotliGT inquiry is: For future drafts, how far ^ill married men form an element to be reckoned ■with?' The figures are: Table 24. 1. Total registered men not called yet. 2. Known married men (June o)... 3. Known single men (June 5) 3, 3j4, US6 Thus it appears that in future drafts we shall find virtually evei-y other man married. 5. In these totals of married and single yet uncalled, what is the net prospect of their relative availability, as shown by the experienca of the first draft? The figures show that the percentage of mari-ied men ac- cepted was 10.87 per cent; the chart to Table 25 shows the variances for the several States. Table 25. 1 . Total married not yet called . 2. Total single not yet called - Accepted men in first draft (called): 3. Married 4. Single Probable net accept- ances on later draft (not called) : 5. Married 6. Single 3, 149, 473 ' 3, 354, 086 163, 115 623, 796 342,348. 1, 321, 845 ccptcd to total mar- ried called cepted to total sin- gle called 1 Fnom tills number should be deducted the number of marriages of such men contr.icted since June 0, estimated at 97,128. by takius the Census Bureau's estimated percentage ol all marriages by men 21 to 30, viz, 0.05 per cent per annum, for Bve months, and applying it to the number of single men still uncalled. This signifies that, after all grounds of rejection have been passed upon (whether dependency, physical disqualification, or all else), the net available numbere of married men and single men, respectively, would be as shown m lines 5 and 6, assuming that the same rules continued to be applied. This is of service in estimat- ing the probable effect of th* ntw classification an- nounced in November. XIV. ALIENAGE AS A GROUND FOR EXEMPTION. Here the figures are: Table 26. 1. Total alien male population 21 and over (estimated) 2. Total aUen males 21-30 reg- istered 3. Total aliens called 4. Aliens discharged, ex- empted, or rejected 5. Aliens certified for service 1, 243, 801 457, 713 381, 168 76, 545 83.28 16.72 1. It tlius appears that the proportion of called aliens discharged was 83 in 100. (a) The proportion of aliens discharged, however, varied in different States, as shown by Appendix Table 26, the largest proportion being found in Dela- ware and the smallest in Montana. (6) In the populous metro-poUfan centers, where the largest numbers of aliens were concentrated, there was also much variance, as shown in Appendix Table 26. There the largest proportion of discharges was found in Seattle and the smallest in Philadelphia. (o) Was the fact that the aliens accepted were as many as 17 in 100 due to their voluntary waiving of claim, or to their ignorance? The figures do not re- veal the an.swer, but the reports from the boards throw some light on this: Most of the boards say that no appreciable number of aliens were certified through ignorance on their part of their privilege of exemption. A comparatively small number report that some — generally only a few — were certified through such ignorance. The areas where this occurred were the congested metro- politan wards, having high numbers of registraitts; the overworked clerks were sometimes heedless of aliens who could not make their desires known ; more- over, the aliens' ignorance of the language and of the legal S3'stem often discouraged them from persisting in the due presentation of their claims. Add to this the marked sentiment prevailing in some localities 51 EEPOBI OF THE PEOVOST MAESHAL GENEKAL. CHART TO TABLE 25. PER CEHT ALABAMA ARIZONA ARKANSAS CALIFORNtA COLORADO CONNECTICUT DELAWARE pIST. OF COLUMBIA FLORIDA GEORGIA IDAHO ILLINOIS INDIANA lOVYA KANSAS KENTUCKY LOUISIANA MAINE MARYLAND MASSACHUSEtra MICHIGAN MINNESOTA MISSISSIPPI MISSOURI MONTANA, NEBRASKA NEVADA NEW HAMPSHIRE NEW JERSEY NEW MEXICO NEW YORK NORTH CAROURA NORTH DAKOTA OHIO OKLAHOMA OREGON PENNSYLVANIA RHODE ISLAND SOUTH CAROLINA SOUTH DAKOTA TENNESSEE TEXAS UTAH VERMONT VIRGINIA WASHINGTON WEST VIRGINIA WISCONSIN WYOMING y// j y//Ay//:^^//^ m^ 7ZZ^ xm?7, ^^ m.'z^ Wi^ 7Z2,'ZZl mm . ^^ y///////. ^^ v//A'///X///}///A'///W/A///}///////A YZ^TZi ^^ 7ZL7Z2. ^^ Ratio of married accepted to married called. MABBIED ACCEPTED ^^ MAB.BIED BUT NOT ACCEPTED REPORT OF THE PROVOST MARSHAL GENERAL. 55 that the quota system fixed by the act of Congress made a burdensome discrimination in favor of aliens. These considerations suffice to explain the occasional rumors in the public press as to the treatment of aliens. There is no reason to suppose that aliens were not given full consideration in any but a very few instances. The figures in tables 27 and 28 strongly corroborate this conclusion. There is ample testimony also that wherever such errors were brought to the boards' attention every effort was made to correct them; many aliens were in this way discharged from camp. It must also be remembered that many aliens were strongly sympathetic with the allies' cause, and were ready and desirous to serve. An overwhelming ma- jority of the boards, to be sure, report that no ap- preciable number of aliens were willing to serve; some boards say " a few were willing." On the other hand, in one Chicago board, 40 per cent of the registered aliens were willing; in Carlyle, Clinton County, 111., 50 per cent ; in Dekalb County, 111., 75 per cent. (d) As between neutral aliens, allied aliens, and aliens allied with the enemy, were there differences of attitude ? The boards' answers to this question are rather in- definite, but it seems probable that while allied and neutral aliens are more sympathetic in their attitude toward the selective-service law than are aliens allied with the enemy, their sympathy does not very often find expression in an eagerness to serve in the Army. As between allied am:l neutral aliens, a number of boards say the allied aliens showed a better attitude, but there are one or two boards who found the neu- tral aliens the more willingto serve. 2. On the whole, how did aliens fare, compared with, cithern and declarants, in being held for service after all exemptions were passed upon? The figures are: Aliens, declarants, and citizens com- pared. Number. Ratio to cit- izens called. Ratio to aUens caned. 1 . Total registered citizens and declarants called ' 2, 625, 236 710, 366 457, 713 70, 545 27.06 4 Certified for service 16.72 [ the United States. Declarants are liable ( hare taken out tbelr first naturaliza- and desire to become full citizens vo under the selective-service act. It thus appears that the benefit of alienage, over and above all other grounds for exemption and dis- charge, amounted to 10 per cent. 3. Was alienage the sole ground availed of for ex- emption by aliens, or did they avoid service on other gDunds? The figures are: ,^ Grounds ot aliens' claims. Number. Ratio to called but not accepted. 1. Total aliens called but not accepted 381, 168 228, 452 152, 716 2. Exempted on claim of alienage 3. Exempted, discharged, or rejected on other grounds 59.93 40 07 Thus it appears that 4 in 10 aliens were enabled to avoid service in other ways than by claiming alienage. 4. What was the diffei-ence in the number of dis- charges for aliens proper and for declarant aliens? The figures are : Table 29. Aliens and declarants. Number. Ratio to caUed. 1. Total aliens called for examination 457, 713 381, les 180, 461 133, 729 2. Discharged or exempted or rejected . . 3. Total declarants called 83.28 4. Discharged or exempted or rejected . . 74.10 Thus it appears that the percentages of aliens and of declarants, respectively, discharged, exempted, or rejected, were 83 per cent and 74 per cent. 5. "What was the proportion of citizens native, citi- zens naturalized, and declarants, when called, who were certified for service? The figures are: Table 30. Naturalized citizens called and accepted. Numbor. Ratio to called. 1. Total citizens native called for examina- tion 2, 355, 602 643, 559 89, 173 20, 075 180, 401 46,732 ■> Certified for service 27.32 3, Total citizens naturalized called 4 22.51 5 Total declarants called 6 Certified for service 25.90 Thus it appears that the respective percentages ac- cepted in each class when called for service were 27, 23, and 26. 6. Thus it also appears that the relative numbers of these three foregoing classes as certified for service are: Table 31. Camp strength as to citizenship. Number. Ratio to total certined. 710,306 043. 559 20, 075 40, 732 Per cmt. 90.59 2 8'' 3. Citizens naturalized 4. Porlnrn,"tf> C.59 56 REPORT OF THE PROVOST MARSHAL GENERAL. 7.. For future drafts^ -what is the propoition of citi- zens and aliens in the draftable popiiLition not yet called for examination? Aliens and citizens not yet called. Number. Ratio to total registrants. 1. Total registrants not yet called for 6, 503, 559 5, 221, 663 181, 474 786, 088 314, 334 Per cent. 80.29 2.79 4.83 (a) This shows that in future drafts of, say, 500,000, the number of aliens liaMc to call will be 60,450, on the basis of the above percentage. (6) To find the probable number of these aliens who would e?iter the service, after all rejections, exemp- tions, and discharges were made, on the basis of the present law and original regulations, take the per- centage accepted under the first draft (Table 27, line 4), viz, 16.72 per cent; applied to the above total 786,088 (Table 32, line 4), it yields 131,434. 8. Nationality of the aliens, {a) Grouped accord- ing to the status of belligerency (as it exists at the time of preparing this report) , the figures are : NationaUtyoJaUens. Total registered. Total called. Accepted, for service. 1 Cobellicrerents 772, 744 148,274 43, 352 40, 663 238, 768 281, 982 55, 901 14, 672 • 12, 959 92, 199 49, 276 11, 200 1,902 928 Austria-IIungary 13, 233 5 Total 1, 243, 801 457, 713 76, 545 Appendix Table 33 shows their location by States. Appendix Table 33A shows the figures for the specific nationalities. (a) The 13,233 Austro-Hungarians in column 3 (ac- cepted for service) were not enemies at the time of the boards' action, nor at the time of making their returns (November 12). The 928 Germans figuring in column 3 (accepted for service) are accounted for in part by inadvertent mis- placing of figures in the boards' statistical returns, and in p"art by reckoning declarants or naturalized citizens as aliens; for no board would have accepted any Ger- mans for service. (&) Of allied (cobelligerent) aliens, what number would be available in future drafts, if by treaty with all cobelligerents and by legislation based thereon such persons ceased to be exempt? Allied (cotelligerent) registrants available. 1. Cobelligerents not yet called 2. Cobelligerents called but exempted, dis- charged, or rejected 3. Total (liable to later calls) 4. Percentage of aliens rejected, ex- empted, or discharged on other grounds than alienage in the first draft (Table 28) 5 Probable available number for later drafts 490, 762 232, 706 723, 468 289, 894 433, 574 Percentage of aliens exempted, XV. OTHER GROUNDS OF EXEMPTION OR DISCHARGE. (A) VOCATIONS SPECIFICALLY RECOGNIZED IN THE LAW AS A BASIS FOR EXEMPTION OR DISCHARGE. The selective-service law makes specified vocations a ground for exemption or discharge by local boards (apart from the "necessary industries" dealt with by the district boards). What was the relative effect of these several grounds of exemption or discharge ? The figures : Table 35. Vocations specifically recognized. Number. Ratio to total ex- emptions on vocational grounds. Total exempted or discharged on these 67, 716 Per cent. 100 00 Federal and State officers (sec. 18a). Ministers (sec 18b) 2. 1,665 3,976 3,144 47, 822 2.46 5 87 5. Military and naval service (sec. 18d). Total for exempted vocations (sec 18) 70.62 56, 607 83 59 County and municipal officers (sec. 20a) 171 1,476 2,358 1,777 1,772 2,066 1 31 Customhouse clerks (sec. 20b) Mail employees (sec 20c) . .25 2 18 10. 11. Arsenal, etc., workmen (sec. 20d).. Federal employees designated by 3.48 1? Pilots (sec 20f) 2 62 IS Mariners (sec 20g) 3 94 Total for dischargeable vocations 14. 11, 109 1. For the foregoing classes the first inquiry is, What proportio7i of the whole number in each such vocation (as shown by census estimates) was exempted or discharged on claim made? The answer could be given only after a careful projection of the thirteenth census figures for the year 1917, and the available time has not sufficed to do this. CHART TO TABLE 33. THOUSANDS BO fOO »B0 MABAMA ARIZONA ARKANSAS TZk - CALIFORNIA ''///////, '///^A f^ COLORADO 3 CONNECTICUT ^///////. y//v/A* 1 DELAWARE DIST. COLUMBIA. FLORIDA GEORGIA IDAHO 1 3 ILLINOIS V/////// y/////// ''^M INDIANA IOWA KANSAS KENTUCKY LOUISIANA MAINE MARYLAND m m 3 n MASSACHUSETTS W/Wa V///////, ///////A 'y'^-^f^ S m i MICHIGAN V//////A wm MINNESOTA MISSISSIPPI MISSOURI MONTANA NEBRASKA NEVADA NEW HAMPSHIRE ) m NEW JERSEY eir usefulness to their country would be of benefit to them. The dissenting minority emphasize the danger to the moral tone of the Army if moral defectives are ad- mitted. A number of boards say they should be held, but assigned to special service or organized in sepa- rate units. The reports of the boards disclose considerable un- certainty as to tlie meaning of the words "morally deficient." The President's regulatien, above cited, explicitly excluded a certain class, but left to the boards' discretion the further application of the terms of tlie statute. Such use of local discretion seems to afford the best solution. 3. In the case cf persons already under arrest or on hail on charges of crijne there was no uniformity of action. A few boards discharged persons of this class; a larger number held them if the prosecuting attorney was willing to discontinue the prosecution; some re- ported them on Form 14G A ("failed to appear"); some discharged tliem temporarily, pending the out- come of the prosecution; many simply certified them for service. The most common practice, apparently, was to certify for service those charged with misde- meanors, but to postpone or temporarily discharge those chaiged ^Yith felony. In many cases it appears that the civil authorities consented to the action of the board in holdifig men for service. (D) ENLARGEMENT OF THE GROUNDS FOR EXEMPTION OB DISCHARGE. By an overwhelming majority, the boards, both local and district, indicate that no additional grounds of ex- emption of discharge, other than those now recog- nized, should be provided. Indeed, about a dozen boards express the opinion that there are already too many groimds. A few boards recommend that students of medicine, dentistry, engineering, and chemistry be exempted or discharged. But this proposal had been anticipated by recent amendments of the selective service regula- tions enabling such students to be entered in the En- listed Keserve Corps pending the completion of their €0 EEPOBT OP THE PROVOST MARSHAL GENERAL, technical studies— a solution more effective for the parpose and more consonant with the spirit of the selective-service system. XVL ENIAEGEMENT OF THE AGE LIMITS FOR COMPUI- SORY MILITARY SERVICE. Should the class of draftable persons in future drafts be enlarged or diminished, as to the ages to be included ? A pronounced majority of the boards favor some en- largement, but there is great diversity of opinion as to the proper age limit. Nineteen and 35 are perhaps the limits most frequently suggested ; but some recommend 40 or 45 years as the upper limit. There is a distinctly stronger demand for raising the maximum age than for lowering the minimum. The reason given for advocating this enlargement is the fact that there are many good men under and over the present limits who could more easily be spared than an equal number within the limits. The following additional suggestions are made by a number of boards: (1) That young men who were under age should come within the law when they reach the minimum draft age; (2) that young men of 18 or 19 should be enrolled and trained, so as to be ready for active service immediatelj' ujjon attaining draft age. It is obvious that we are at the threshold of this problem in our further provision for the conduct of the war, and that a wise foresight should be employed in settling it. The two most important preliminary inquiries are: "What are the numbers of availahle men in the addi- tional age-groups ? Wliich groups can^we least afford to draw from? 1. The available numbers are as follows: Table 36. 1. Males 31-45 years, both inclusive (estimated) 2. Males 21-30 years, both inclusive, not yet called. . 3. Males, 18-20 years, both inclusive (estimated) 4. Males arriving at age 21, between June, 1917 and June, 1918 (estimated) 10, 683, 249 6, 503, 559 3, 087, 063 1, 000, 000 Inasmuch as most (96 per cent) of the age 18-20 group are not married, and most (77 per cent) of the age 31-45 are married, it will serve sufficiently the purpose to estimate the number of single persons avail- able in each of these groups, and then to take the prob- able number of acceptances, as shown by the percentage of acceptances in the first draft (Table 25). This esti- mate results as follows : Probable acceptable men in age groups. Gross number. Probable per cent o( aceeptables. Net numbers. 1. Single males 31^5 yeais 3, 525, 472 3,354,086 2, 963, 581 960, 000 39.41 39.41 39.41 39.41 1, 389, 388 2. Single males 21-30 years not 1, 321, 845 3. Single males 18-20 years (es- timated) 1, 167, 947 4. Single males arriving at age 378, 336 5 Total 10, 803, 139 4, 257, 516 These figures show us the respective sizes of the available reservoirs to be drawn from. In considering the grounds of preferences for the three groups not now liable to service, conflicting con- siderations meet us. The younger men are generally deemed to make the soundest and most pliable military material. On the other hand, the older men are more Ukely to yield in large number.s the occupational skill so necessary in the varied composition of the modern army. Moreover, imder the rational selective-service system, which seeks to distribute the burden equally among the willing and the unwilling, it is important, if not essential, to include the older men, because a smaller proportion of them are likely to enlist; i. e., to enter the Ariny voluntarily without waiting for the call of the law. If the age limits were not enlarged to include the older men for raising the needed num- • hers, too large a proportion of the youuger and more aggressively patriotic men would be withdrawn from civil life, thus unduly injuring the coming generation. In view, however, of the considerable number of men already available under the law, the main reason for enlarging the age lunits at this time is to distribute the burden more equally, in preparation for a later situation of need that may arise. From this point of view, the extension might well be both upward and downward, by way of a registration of all ages 19 to 21 and 31 to 45. In any event, the greatest caution should be exer- cised not to interfere with the technical training of the younger group of men. The higher training should be protected from undue inroads ; for it is there that the practical sciences are being developed. Both M'ar and industry must be able' to count upon a con- tinuous and ample supply of tranced young men. The experience of continental countries here has its lessons for us. The technical courses should not be allowed to be gutted. Already, by volunteering alone, many or most colleges have lost (on the average) 50 per cent of their students. The number at stake is not largo in respect of the mere man power of the Army, but it is potent in its possibilities for service if properly trained. EEPOBT OF THE PKOVOST MARSHAL GENERAL. CI A wise exftedient v,-ould be (if the age limits are lowered (o 18 or 19) (1) to i-cquire every technical student in a recctgnized college to enter the Enlisted Reserve Corps, and to relieve him from call by a local board during the completion of his course; (2) to re- quire every such student to take a course of military instruction and drill for each of such years, or to en- ter an officers' training camp during the summer; (3) to appropriate the sums necessary to provide military instruction and drill at every college furnishing a unit of 100 men. By this means, the vital demand for ed- ucated young men could be filled, and at the same time their preparation for military service when needed could be insured. XVII. KELATION OF LOCAL AND DISTRICT BOAEDS (APPEALS). The appellate system provided for the revision and control of rulings, and for rulings on claims of exemp- tion and discharge tliere was an appeal from the local boai'd to the district board. (I) APPEALS ON RULINGS OF PHYSICAL QUALIFICATIONS. There was no appeal from a local board ruling on physical qualification, but provision was made for the equivalent of an appeal by the Government fi'om the examining physician to the board when the physician found the man disqualified; this was the method of re- examination by a second physician. Thi*method, however, has been replaced in the new selective-service regulations (Dec. 15) by a method of sending doubtful cases to a medical advisory board and of permitting an appeal to the district board. (II) APPEALS ON CLAIMS OF EXEMPTION OR DISCHARGE. Appeals from rulings of local boards could be taken from any ruling on a claim of exemption or discharge, whether granting or denying such claim. The figures for such appeals are: Appeals from local boards. Nomber. Ratio to total claims disallowed. Ratio to 1. Total claims disallowed by 245, 737 191,484 96, 499 78, 829 16, 156 100.00 77.92 2. Total appeals filed by parties with district boards (Nov. IS) 3.\ Appeals acted/Denied... 4./ on. IGraiited.. 5. Appeals pending Nov. IS 55 04 r the appeals taken by persons disputins the ^Ijim, titlKT a private person or the Oorern- I r only the appeals tiled by or on behalf lia\e been "'reopened" by local boards, riLjl errors, etc. (under Coriipiled rulmgs, ■ - ■ lOlSl, dated Nov. 13, It of such cases. 1. It time appears that 78 per cent of all cljrims dis- allowed were appealed, indicating a marked demand for consideration by an indejiendent authority. 2. It also appears that 45 per cent of all appeals filed were granted. This seems to indicate that the institution was a useful and needful one, even though the correctness "of the appellate ruling in every case be not assumed. Nevertheless, the wide variances in the figures for the different States (not here printed) show that not much significance can be attached to the average percentage. One board, in Illinois, reports only 2 per cent of reversals on appeal; an- other board, in Missouri, reports 95 per cent of re- versals. In other States the range of reversals was from 10 per cent to 55 per cent, and from 20 per cent to 65 per cent for different boards within the same State. Evidently the average of 45 per cent does not signify that this was the usual amount of correction needed for local boards' rulings, but merely that this was the national average for a wide variety of policies and attitudes in the several district boards. Nevertheless, the revisory function of the district boards was a valuable and necessary one. Betli dis- trict and local boards, though naturally taking op- posite points of view, concur in this view. Some two- thirds of the local boards express the opinion that the appeal to the district board is useful, not only as tending to uniformity and as increasing public con- fidence, but as relieving the local boaxds them.selves from the often difficult and delicate task «f sitting in final judgment on the cases of their friends and neigh- bors. The dissent, however, is vigorous and in some cases bitter, the chief argument being that the district boards do not understand local conditions and arc not so familiar with the real facts. The district boards are unanimous in believing that the appeal is useful. Many of them speak of it as one of the most im- portant provisions of the law. According to their views, it is essential to the uniform administration of the law and to the correction of errore committed by the local boards; it greatly mitigates dissatisfaction with the decisions of the local boards ; it protects reg- istrants from injustice resulting from local preju- dice and influence; it serves to prevent local boards from neglecting their duty or abusing their power; it bars the escape of many men who ought to be in the Army. Most of the district boards report that their rela- tions with the local boards, in interchange of business, were satisfactory. There is frequent complaint, how- ever, of the slowness of local boards in certifying their lists of eligibles. The volume of complaint against the district boards for tardiness in certifying lists is just about equal to that against the local boards by the district boards. As one local board very consid- erately expresses it, " We realize that they have their troubles also." 32 KEPOKT OF THE PBOVOST MARSHAL GENERAL. 3. Under the original regulations the local boards were not required to mahe any record of the grounds of their ruling for the information of the district hoard in reviewing the ruling. Nor were the district boards required to do the like in reversing a local board ruling. In consequence, few boards of either :sort did so. This left each in ignorance of the other's reasons for action and proved to be in some i-espects undesirable. Most boards recommended a change in the regulations. But this need had been foreseen, and luider the revised regulations of November 8, 1917 (sec. 101, Rule XXXIII; se«. 107, Rule XLII), each class of boards is required to enter a minute of its reasons for a ruling. Other minor recommendations have also been anticipated in the new regulations. XVIII. INDUSTEIAL NECESSITY AS A GROUND FOR DIS- CHARGE. It remains to examine the scope and effect of those discharges placed by law in the original jurisdiction of the district boards, viz, " persons engaged in indus- tries, including (U/riculture, found to be necessary to the maintenance of the military establishment, or the effective operation of the military forces, or the main- tenance of national interest during the eniergenc}'. (These will be referred to hereafter as " industrial discharges," to follow the statutory use of the term " industry.") Note. — The figures here to be given have some margin of un- certainty, so far as tlie net final results are coucerned, be- cause the final action of the district boards, and of the Tresi- deut on appeals, was not completed at the date (Nov. IS) when it became necessary to call for the national figures for use in this report. The number of cases pending and undisposed of on that date was approximately 24,652. (Tables 17 and 40.) Three main inquiries here- suggest themselves: (I) Wliat loere the numbers of industrial claims presented and acted upon by the boards? . (II) For the several industriest, what was the pro- portional inroad vmde on the -■adustry at large, by the first draft? (Ill) For the several inditstries, what numbers of registrants remain available for future drafts, under the selective-service act as it now stands? 310DE OF COMPUTATION OF TABLES 39, 4 2, 4 3. 1. The docket summaries of the local boards do not show the respective industries of the registrants. For this purpose it was necessary to rely upon the registra- tion cards. 2. Nor do the docket summaries of the district boards specify the respective industries, other than agriculture. For this purpose, it would be necessary to consult the papers filed by each claimant. As the time available was limited, and the boards were over- worked, the call for the figures was left ojDtional for the district boards to answer. The total number re- plying was 95. Hence the figures represent probable percentages only. 3. The total number of industries as classified in the Thirteenth Census was several hundreds. As the boards, in the limited time, could not be asked to clas- sify with such nicety, the census classes were reduced, by condensation, to 30 groups. The census totals for these 30 groups therefore give an accurate basis for computing the effect of the draft on the entire person- nel of tli6 respective industrial groups. 4. For topic (I) above, the source of the figures is the docket sheets of the district and local boards. For topics (II) and (III) the source is the registration cards. Obviously the former source showed only the action taken upon claims made, and was tiseless for determin- ing the net effect of the draft upon a given industrial group; e. g., out of 500 registrant farmers in a given area, 100 farmers might have been discharged on in- dustrial claims, and yet 100 others might have been discharged on dependency claims, or 200 in all, so that the net loss to the farming industry was only 300 (in- stead of 400, as the industrial claim discharges alone would have seemed to indicate). Therefore the regis- tration cards, marked to show whether discharged or not discharged, were taken as the source for this in- formation. (I) INDXrSTRIAL CLAIMS ACTED UPON BY THE DISTRICT BOARDS. c A. Action of district hoards. — Taking the statutory grouping of agricultural and nonagricultural indus- tries, the respective numbers of claims for discharge acted upon by the district boards were as follows ; Table 39. Industrial discharges. Number. Ratio to total agricultural and non- agricultural registrants. Eatio to claims. 1. Total agricultural regis- trants called.. 782, 503 93, 428 58, 812 33, 528 1,088 2, 300, 446 47, 448 20; 315 886 100. 00 1L94 2. Total agricultural claims filed!! 5 Pending 1 16 6. Total nonagricultural reg- 100. 00 2.06 7. Total nonagricultural claims filed ■ 100 00 10. Pending, 1. S7 1. Thus it appears that 12 in every 100 agricultural registrants called filed ckiims, M'hile but 2 in every 100 nonagricultural registrants called filed claims. REPORT OF THE PROVOST MARSHAL GENERAL. 63 Appendix Table 39 shows how this varied by States. 2. It also appears that 3() in every 100 agricultural claims xcerc granted, while 43 in cveiy 100 nonagri- cultural claims were granted. Whether the difference was due to variance in strict- ness or laxity of boards, or to variance in groundless- ness of claims, for the two classes, does not appear. AjDpendix Table 39 shows the vEtriations in the several States. 3. Dividing all the industries into 30 groups, the relative numbers held for service and discharged in each industrial grvup are shown in Appendix Table 39A. This taljle shows that the gi'oup in which the great- est percentage of claimants was held for service was trade and merchandise in general ; and that the groups in which the least percentage was held for service were iron and steel industries, especially blast furnaces, steel rolling mills, iron foundries, military weapons factories, powder, cartridge and dynamite factories, ship and boat building yards. This throws some light on the convictions of the district boards as to the rela- tive necessity of the various industries, under the definition of the selective-service law. Note to Table 39. — In these figures tliere is a small margin of uncertainty, because the figiu-es for tlie total claims filed represent agriculture, etc., as classiCed in the district board docket sheets, while the figures for total registrants represent agriculture, etc., as classified by the local board enumerators. The foregoing figures represent the original action of the district boards. On appeal to the President some rulings were reversed, as shown in Table 40. B. Appeals from district hoai'ds to the President. — Appeals from rulings of a district board to the Presi- dent on an industrial claim were the last stage of the selective procedure. The figures are : Appeals to the President, Total claims disallowed Total appeals to Presi- dent (Dec. 19) Appeals acted on, denied , Appeals acted on, granted , Appeals u-ithdrawn or nonappi/alable. Appeals pending (Dec. 19) 85, 059 22, 250 12, 435 1,006 313 « 8, 496 92.51 '7.49 1 Thi'; C.srure was on Dec. 15 only 7.18 per cent (932 cases), w&ich percentage was crt In liie computations for Table 17. ' Tliu fipire on Dec. 15 amountod to 8,791, wliieli number was used in the compu- 1. Thus it appears that 2G.1G per cent of all claims disallowed were appealed, and that 7.49 per cent of all appeals acted on were granted. {a) The former percentage indicates that there was relatively small disposition to dispute the decisions of district boards. {h) The latter percentage indicates that there was small ground for the employment of the appeal to the President. Inasmuch as many of the appeals were taken where the district board had ruled unanimously after the most careful investigations and deliberations, the revised regulations of November 8, 1917, provide (sec. Ill) that an appeal to the President can be taken only when one member of the district board recommends it, as well as either the Goverxmient ap- peal agent or the State adjutant general. 2. Taking the two statutory classes of industrial claims, viz, agricultural and iwnagricultural, the fig- ures are as follows: Table 41. Kinds of claims appealed. Number. Perwnt of Percci:t of t^Vrns api c-als disalfcwed. acieU on. 1. Total agricuttiu^l claims dis- 58, 812 17, 218 9,4.57 7,021 26, 247 4,719 2,97« 2M 1.475 313 22, 23» 2. Total appeals to Presi- dent (Dec. 19). .. 29. 28 .\ppeals acted on: 3. Denied 5. Appeals pending 6. Total nonagricultural claims 7. Total appeals to Presi- dent (Dec. 19) 27. S3 Appeals acted on: 8. Denied 10. Appeals pending. . . . 11. Appeals withdrawn or non- 12. Total appeals filed {a) Thus it appears that the percentage of ap]>caJs fled to claims disallowed was, for aijrieiiUural claims 29, and for nonagricultural claims 28. {h) The percentage of appeals granted was for agi'icuUural claims, 7.26, and for nonagriciiUurnl claims, 8.20; indicating no substantial difference be- tween them. (c) For the several States, however, an intcre>t;ug range of difference appears (Appendix Table 41). (H) EFr-ECT OF THE FIHST DKAFI LARGE. ON INDUSTRY AT The second inquiry here is: What was the propor- tional inroad made by the first draft upon industry" at large, for the several industries? The figures are: 64 EEPOET OF THE PEOVOST MAESHAL GENEEAL. Table 42.' Total indus- trial popu- lation, 1917. Total registered. Total called. Total accepted for service. Effect of Qrst draft on industry at large. Number. ■ Number. Number. Number. Ratio to population. A. Agriculture, Forestry, and Animal Husbandry. 1. Agriculture (farming, truck gardening, fruit raising, etc.) 13, 843, 518 200, 991 227, 325 2, 439, 240 78, 241 46, 64g 782, 503 24, 507 15, 642 205, 731 7,984 4,570 1.48 2. Forestry (lumberino*, etc.) 3. 97 3 Animal husbandry (fishino'" cattle raisin^' sheep raisin**, etc.^ 2.01 B. Mines, Quarries, and Wells. 4 . Coal mines 000, 148 275, 5G1 51, 223 225, 109 92, 002 33, 040 74, 109 35, 553 10, 010 18, 710 10, 377 3,026 3.12 5. Other mines (copper mines; gold and silver mines; iron mines; lead and zinc mines); quarries; saltmines; salt wells and salt factories C. Oil wells and gas wells 5! 91 C. MANUrACTURINO INDUSTRIES. (/) Building industries. 7. House contractors; carpenters; blacksmiths; machinists; electricians; painters; plasterers* plumbers; etc '- . . 2, 878, 792 700, 790 231, 835 57, 970 2.01 (77) Chemical industries. 8. Powder, cartridge, dynamite, fuze, and fireworks factories 10, 307 80, 331 25, 999 21.940 .7:986 2,310 1,920 '22.41 9. Fertilizer factories; paint factories; soap factories; other chemical factories. . 2.40 (777) Clay, glass, and stone industries. 10. Brick, tile, and torra-cotta factories; glass factories: lime, cement, and gj^psum factories; marble and stone yards; potteries 240, 072 74, 5S0 21,923 6,022 2.45 (7F) Clothing industries. 11. Clothing factories; glove factories; hat factories; shut, collar, and cuff factories 754,002 114, 087 44, 952 7,370 .98 ( V) Food industries. 12. Bakeries; butter and cheese factories; candy factories; fish curing and packing; flour and grain mills; fruit and vegetable canning; slaughter and packing liouses; sugar factories and refineries; other food factories. . 390, 519 160, 709 50, 929 11,687 2.95 ( F7) Iron and steel industries. 13. Blast furnaces; steel rolling mills; iron foundries; military weapons factories. 14. Shipbuilding and boat biiildino- 373, 701 62, 071 822, 540 241,145 35, 949 310, 318 92, 434 11,910 102, 860 22, 008 2,028 24, 857 5.90 4.23 15. Agriculturafimplement factories; automobile factories; wagon and carriage factories; car and railroad shops; other iron and steel factories 3.02 (F77) Leather industries. 16. Hariicis and saddle factories; shoe factories; tanneries; trunk factories 343,805 81, 575 24, 663 5,063 1.47 ( T777) Liquor and beverage industries. 17". Breweries ; other liquor and beverage factories 89, 190 17, 669 5,752 1,472 1.65 (7X) Lwnhcr and furniture industries. 18. Bo.\ factories (wood); furniture factories; piano and organ factories; saw and planing mills ; other woodworking factories 541,926 145, 379 43,144 11,458 2.11 (.Y) Metal industries (except iron and steel). 19. Bra.-s mills; egon Peunsvl vania . :'aio>ie Island. J tall k'^crmont. .... . l''irginia iVa=hington Ki'>-\ ^■irq;inia. ^•H-in^in luclassilied. 9, 586, ! 182, 499 37, 355 149, 097 298, 989 84, 125 160,037 22 122 32^ 372 83,226 232, 537 41, 606 645, 037 255, 754 215, 939 150, 347 190, 629 159, 475 60, 593 362^ 825 374, 317 139' 321 297, 456 118, 278 12, 090 37,519 304,208 33, 497 , 009, 345 197, 481 65,963 554, 709 170, 956 63, 319 815, 973 53,589 128,019 57, 899 18S, 946 409, 743 44, 158 27,244 181, 526 110, 167 125, 846 244, 884 22, 896 3, 082, 949 52, 385 22, 113 45, 271 135, 387 24,547 70, 176 7,466 4,163 25, 317 71, 071 9,307 229, 345 76, 424 43,249 24,742 60,294 39,744 9,604 33, 659 120, 207 135, 341 63, 187 31, 205 81, 183 28, 441 28, 573 5,474 6,740 113, 057 10, 491 369, 076 63, 599 19, 591 201, 090 63, 810 2, 890 302, 541 12, 191 39, 049 8,602 54, 827 139, 929 12, 416 5,616 47,032 36, 897 32, 748 60, 149 2,733 28.70 59.20 30.36 45. 28 29.18 43.85 33.75 12.86 30.42 30.56 22.37 35.56 20! 03 16.46 31.63 24.92 15.85 27.68 33.13 36.16 28.37 22.40 27.29 32.21 24. 16 45.28 17.96 37.16 31. 32 36.57 31. 05 29. 70 36. 25 37. 33 4.56 37. 08 22. 75 30.50 14.86 29.02 34.15 28.12 20.61 25.91 33.49 26.02 24.56 11.94 18, 794 6,188 11, 695 44,155 7,824 20, 249 998 952 11, 342 27, 408 3,250 85, 651 26, 060 12, 129 9,494 21,925 19, 743 2,901 11, G54 33, 710 44, 516 24, 189 15, 201 19,493 13, 236 8,764 2,103 2, 012 34, 185 4, 234 99, 787 15, 846 62] 037 25, 026 1,400 101, 026 3,044 14, 804 3,736 15, 909 50, 108 4. 239 1, 414 18, 388 n,095 12, 684 19, 820 1, 3G7 42, 744 .30 35.88 27.98 25.83 32.61 31.87 28.84 13.37 22.87 44.80 38.56 34.92 37. 35 34.10 28.04 38.37 36.36 49.68 30.21 34 62 28.04 32. 89 38.28 48.71 24.01 46.54 30.67 38.42 29.85 30.24 40.36 27.04 24.91 42.03 30.85 39.22 48.44 33.59 24.97 37.91 43. 43 29.02 35.81 34.14 25.18 39.10 30.07 38.73 32. 95 50.02 APPENDIX TABLE 4, RELATION OF CALLED TO NOT APPEARED, Total regis- trantscalled. FaUed to appear. Ratio to caUed. Total regis- trants called. Failed to appear. Ratio to caUed. United States 3, 082, 949 252, 294 8.18 Montana . — - ., .. „ . . 23,441 28,573 5,474 6,740 113,057 10, 491 369, 076 63, 599 19,591 201, 090 63, 810 2, 890 302, 541 12,191 39, 049 8,602 54,827 139, 929 12, 410 5, 016 47,032 36, 897 32, 748 60, 149 3,854 1,369 1,179 611 8,419 1, 334 29, 334 3,122 1,437 17, 379 3,087 245 25, 626 545 2,715 279 2,697 14, 173 1,053 295 3,974 3,474 2,284 6, 245 399 13.55 52, 385 22, 113 45, 271 135, 387 24, 547 70, 176 7,460 4, ] 63 25, 317 71,071 9,307 229, 345 76,424 43,249 24, 742 60, 294 39, 744 9,604 83, 059 120, 207 135, 341 63, 187 31, 205 81, 183 3,530 5,725 2,207 14,074 1,888 8,007 385 253 3,604 5, 004 24, 634 3,728 1,589 1,416 2,937 '■S 1,978 9,763 1:5$; 2,095 3,899 6.74 25.88 10!40 7.69 12.26 5.16 6.08 14.47 7.13 8.94 10.74 4.88 3.67 5.72 4 87 10.13 8;i2 7.29 5.45 6.71 4.80 Nevada , 21.54 9.07 Arkaasas California New Jersey ,„ 7.45 12.71 Colorado NewYork 7.95 4.91 7.34 Ohio 8.64 Florida Oklaioma 6.25 8.48 Idaho Pennsylvania 8.47 Illinoi'5 Rhode Island 4.47 6.95 T South Dakota 3.24 'Kaniav Tennessee 4.92 TT f 1. , Texas 10. 13 Utah • 8.4S Vermont 5.25 Maryland 8. 4'. 9.42 6.97 Wisconsin 10. 33 14.50 32006°— 18 6 APPENDIX TABLES 8 AND 9. PROPORTION OF COLORED REGISTRANTS TO TOTAL REGISTRANTS; OF COLORED CALLED TO COLORED REGIS- TRANTS; AND OF COLORED ACCEPTED TO COLORED CALLED. Total, registrants. Colored registrants. Ratio to total registrants. Colored caUed. Batioto colored registrants. £^1 Eatioto colored called. Eatioofall persons cafied to all accepted. 9, 586, 508 737, 626 7.69 208, 953 28.33 75,697 36.23 34.30 182,499 37, 225 20.40 10, 291 27.64 8.174 30.84 35.88 37, 355 273 .73 151 55.31 72 47.68 27.98 149, 097 7,143 4.79 2,814 39.39 1,587 56.40 25.83 298, 989 2,538 .85 1,160 45.71 428 36.89 32.61 84, 125 894 L06 228 25.50 116 50.88 31.8. 160, 037 3,170 1.98 1,579 49.81 920 58.27 28 84 22, 122 3,373 15.25 1,126 33.38 376 33.39 13.37 32, 372 9,673 29 88 1,118 1L56 539 48.21 22.87 83, 226 27, 697 33.28 8,249 29.78 2, 145 26.00 44.80 232, 537 92, 964 39.98 25, 754 27.70 7,244 28.13 38.56 41, 606 968 2.33 365 37.71 123 33.69 34.92 645, 037 21, 373 3.31 7,136 33.39 2,812 39.41 37.35 255, 754 10, 187 3.98 2,813 27.61 1,004 35.69 34.10 215, 939 1,859 .86 274 14.74 134 48.90 28.04 150, 347 4,594 3.06 555 12.08 294 52.97 38.37 190, 629 19, 198 10.07 4,953 25.80 1,709 34.50 36.36 159, 475 50, 873 31.90 12, 043 23.67 5,236 43.48 49.68 60, 593 102 .17 9 8.82 1 n.u 30.21 121, 598 19,415 15.97 5,093 26.23 2,088 4L00 34.02 362, 825 3,044 .84 947 3L11 170 17.95 28.04 374, 317 5,580 L49 2,150 38.53 987 45.91 32.89 222, 698 3,687 1.66 2; 334 63.30 169 72.41 38.28 139, 321 33, 233 23.85 6,219 18.71 2,462 39.59 48.71 297, 456 9,647 3.24 1,870 19.38 893 47.75 24.01 88, 299 398 .45 130 32.66 57 43.84 46.54 118, 273 4,499 3.80 761 16.91 383 50.33 30.67 12, 090 33 .27 12 63.64 16 76.19 38.42 37, 519 50 .13 9 18.00 4 44.44 29.85 304, 208 10, 979 3.61 3,526 32.12 1,289 36.55 30.24 33, 497 155 .46 31 20.00 10 32.26 40.36 1, 009, 345 16, 390 L62 5,196 31.70 1,951 37.55 27.04 197, 481 19, 502 9.88 6,267 32.14 1,568 25.02 24.91 65, 963 267 .40 214 80.15 197 92.06 42.03 554, 709 39, 398 7.10 12, 376 31.41 5,064 40.92 30.85 170, 956 10, 299 6.02 3,518 34.16 1, 680 47.76 39.22 63, 319 322 .51 1 .31 .00 48.44 815, 973 36, 341 4.45 14, 558 40.06 6,861 40.26 33.59 53, 589 1,099 2.05 232 21.11 82 35.34 24.97 128, 019 59, 126 46.18 18, 446 3L19 4,875 26.43 37.91 57, 899 115 .20 27 23.47 13 48.15 43.43 188, 946 34, 069 18.03 7,940 23.31 36.10 29.02 409, 743 70, 249 17.14 20, 492 29.17 7,838 38.25 35.81 44, 158 300 .68 69 23.00 34 49.28 24.14 27, 244 50 .18 4 8.00 1 25.00 25.18 181, 526 53, 080 29.24 12, 720 23.96 5,756 45.25 39.10 110, 167 394 .36 131 33.24 64 45.85 30.07 125, 846 11, 186 8.89 2,928 26.18 1,348 46. 04 38.73 244, 884 440 .18 89 20.23 37 41.57 32.95 22,896 175 .76 36 20.57 20 55.55 50.03 United States. Alabama Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia . Florida Georgia Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas '.". Kentiieky Louisiana .Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missourf Montana - Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire. New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina. . North Dakota . . . Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Ponnsvl vania Rho.le" Island.... ■-'outh ("nrolina. . South Dakota... Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Mrginia AVasliington ■U'est Vii-ginia . . . Wisconsin Wyoming 82 APPENDIX TABLE 12. PROPORTION OF PHYSICALLY EXAMINED TO PHYSICALLY QUALIFIED. Total exam- inediphysi. Physically qualified. Ratio to total exam- ined. Physically unfit. Ratio to total exam- ined. United States . 2, 510, 706 1, 779, 950 70.89 730, 756 29.11 47, 867 12, 356 41, 557 95, 647 21, 089 29, 002 6,258 20; 505 05, 946 8,317 187,535 70, 948 40, 961 23, 555 60, 231 38, 385 8,511 30, 922 83, 796 123, ICl 55, 450 29, 117 76, 040 24, 092 26,377 3,737 5,073 90, 710 8,808 322, 082 59, 879 17, 605 167, 828 58, 896 2,622 161, 323 9,379 35, 681 8,290 51, 887 119, 779 9,947 5,141 43, 243 29, 823 19, 457 45, 83S 2,350 36, 3G9 9,352 29, 777 70, 614 15, 174 15, 575 4,155 46^ 394 6, 522 139, 091 51, 931 31, 875 18, 189 41, 345 26, 787 4,888 21, 667 54, 067 90, 409 42, 109 21, 315 55, 655 18, 601 21, 063 2,607 3,110 62, 650 6,287 223,754 42,048 13, 654 124, 057 45, 920 1,947 86, 029 6,309 25, 581 6,294 36, 875 91,312 7,482 2,888 30, 794 22, 155 12, 262 33, 660 1,844 75.93 75.69 ■ 71.65 73.83 7L95 53.70 66.40 72.17 72.37 70. 35 78.42 74.17 73.20 77.82 77.22 68.64 69.79 57.43 70.07 64.52 73.41 75.94 73.20 73.19 77.21 79.85 69.76 GL30 69.07 71.38 69.47 70.22 77.55 73.92 77.97 74.20 53.33 67.27 71.69 85.87 7L07 76.24 75.22 56.18 71.21 74.29 63.02 73.43 78.47 11, 498 3,004 11, 780 25, 033 5,915 13, 427 2,103 1,029 5,666 19, 552 1,795 48, 444 19, 017 9,086 5,366 18, 886 11, 598 3,623 9; 255 29, 729 32, 752 13, 341 7,802 20, 385 5,491 5, 314 1,130 1,963 28, 060 2,521 98,328 17,831 3,951 43, 771 12,976 675 75, 294 3,070 10, 100 2,002 15, 012 28, 467 2,465 2,253 12, 449 7,668 7,195 12, 178 506 24.02 24.31 28.35 26.17 Colorado 28 05 46.30 33.60 District of CoIuEibia 27.83 Florida 27.63 29.65 Idaho 21.58 25.83 Indiana 26.80 22.18 Kansas 22.78 31.36 30,21 42:57 29.93 35.48 Michigan 26.59 24.06 26.80 26.81 22.79 20.15 Nevada 30.24 38.70 30.93 28:62 New Yorli 30.53 North Carolina - ... 29.78 22.45 26.08 Oklahoma 22.03 25.74 46.67 Rhode Island . 32.73 28.31 14.13 28.93 Texas 23.76 Utah 24.78 43.82 28.79 Washington 25.71 36.93 Wisconsin 26.57 2L53 APPENDIX TABLE 19. PROPORTION OF CLAIMS FILED TO TOTAL REGISTRANTS CALLED AND OF CLAIMS GRANTED TO CLAIMS FILED IN LOCAL BOARDS. Claims granted. e,£^?fll»d. United States. Alabama Arizona Arkansas California Colorado. Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Lonisiana Maine Mar\dand Mass-iciuisetts Mic!;igan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Ncva.'.n New lianii'sbire New .Terser New -Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsj-lvania Rhode" Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Te:^a3 Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming 46.05 8L79 25, 883 9,542 20, 866 66, 696 11,373 32, 931 3, 570 2,094 9,954 32, 743 4,227 115, 292 35, 455 19, 125 12, 012 31, 577 14, 238 3,629 15, 257 55, 636 26^ 652 13, 237 38, 803 9,466 12, 878 2,113 2,946 51, 562 4,107 171,367 29, 488 8, 459 95, 395 31, 204 1,029 131, 963 6, 047 17, 790 3,559 25,026 67, 769 6,287 1,953 21,411 16G8S 14,444 25, 050 1,043 49.41 43.15 46.09 49.26 46.33 46. 93 47.82 50.30 39.32 46. 07 45.42 50.27 46.39 44.22 48. 55 52.37 35. 82 37.79 45. 33 46.28 44. 21 42.18 42.42 47.80 33.28 45.07 38.60 43.71 45.61 39. 15 46.43 46.37 43.18 47.44 48.90 35.61 43.62 49.60 45.56 41.37 45.65 48.43 50.64 34.78 45.52 45.22 44.11 41.65 38.16 18, 138 8,526 14, 746 9^729 29, 630 . 3,098 1,465 7,453 24, 506 3,407 97, 966 28, 544 13, 905 9,235 26, 052 2;613 12,396 46, 805 51, 602 21,741 7,904 30, 510 7,612 9,731 1,717 2,312 45, 068 2,947 143, 243 21, 502 5,953 83, 955 23, 386 737 114, 288 5,396 12, 157 2,732 17,646 55, 2.53 5,329 1,469 15, 284 13, .569 11, 750 21, 127 797 70.08 89.35 70.67 84.85 85.54 89.98 86.78 69.96 74.87 74.84 80.60 84.97 80.51 72.71 76.88 82.50 68.00 72.00 8L25 84.13 86.23 81.57 59.71 78.62 80.41 75.56 81. 25 78.48 87.41 71.76 83.59 72.92 70.37 88.01 74.95 71.62 86. GO 89.23 68.34 76.76 70.51 81.53 84.76 75. 22 71.38 81.32 81.35 84.34 76.41 APPENDIX TABLE 22. RELATION OF MARRIAGE TO DEPENDENCY AS GROUNDS FOR DISCHARGE. Total Total Katio to total. Total married accepted. Ratio to married called. Total married rejected for dependency. Ratio of gain of dependency over marriage. United States 3, 082, 949 1, 500, 056 48.66 163, 115 10.87 748, 762 17.89 52, 385 22,113 45,271 135, 387 24, 547 70, 176 7,466 4,163 25, 317 71, 071 9,307 229, 345 76, 424 43, 249 24, 742 60, 294 39, 744 9,604 33, 659 120, 207 135, 341 63, 187 31, 205 8i; 183 28, 441 28, 573 5,474 6,740 113, 057 10, 491 369, 076 63, 599 19, 591 201, 090 63,810 2,890 302, 541 12, 191 39, 049 8,602 54,827 139, 929 12,416 5,616 47, 032 36, 897 32, 748 00, 149 2,733 31, 119 8,793 27, 664 55, 888 11,763 29, 696 1^982 13,071 42, 375 3,958 107,833 41,905 20,444 11, 992 34,837 20, 636 4,589 17,367 51, 500 65, 386 23,056 17, 560 42, 408 9,525 13, 393 1,626 3,094 55,092 5,395 103, 016 35, 682 6,916 101, 242 ■ 30, 502 1,104 148, 734 5,578 22, 812 3,528 32, 236 76, 857 5,603 2,699 23, 700 14, 651 16, 908 23, 850 884 59.40 39.78 61.11 41.28 47.92 42.32 48.25 47.61 51.63 59.62 42.53 47.02 54.83 47.27 48.47 57.77 51.92 47.78 51.60 42.84 48.31 36.49 56.27 52.24 33.49 46.87 29.70 45.91 48.73 51.43 44.17 56.10 35.30 50.35 57.20 38.20 49.16 45.76 58.42 41.01 58.81 54.93 45.12 48.06 50.39 39.71 51.63 39.65 32.35 4,731 1,682 5,752 3,501 1,282 2,633 177 367 1,711 5,320 228 11, 247 4,288 1^432 4,355 4,462 705 1,453 3,704 6,840 1,341 4,192 3,801 1,404 943 148 400 4,854 835 11, 729 10, 496 5,726 112 17, 184 353 3,221 278 4,971 9,950 562 230 '•?! 2,447 914 170 15.20 19.12 20.79 6.26 10.90 8.87 4.91 18.52 13.09 12.55 5.76 10.43 10.23 1L94 12.50 21.62 15.36 8.37 7.19 10.46 5.82 23.87 8.96 15.37 7.04 9.10 12.93 8.81 15.48 7.19 12.05 4.31 10.37 15.69 10. 14 11.55 14! 12 7.88 15.42 12.95 10.03 8.52 16.25 5.43 14.47 19123 15, 298 2,938 12, 601 27, 987 5,773 10, 132 1,898 755 5,186 21, 443 2,341 59, 409 23, 367 11, 393 7,180 22, 123 7,985 1,711 9,076 18,300 37, 910 13, 380 6,788 23,414 5,117 7,520 464 983 24,299 1,956 75, 419 17, 458 3,924 54, 420 20, 007 516 73, 121 1,758 10, 506 2; 170 15, 113 38, 999 3,382 916 12, 180 7,807 13) 154 426 23.62 36.41 Arkanqa-q 31.34 11.12 18.17 20.62 Delaware 8.13 32.71 Florida 24.81 19.88 IdaS IlUnoig . ' 15.92 15.51 T 12.85 16.63 Kentucky 16.45 35.84 Maine 29.18 13.80 16.83 15.28 MinnSota 9.11 38.18 13.97 22.25 Nebraska 11.14 24.18 28. 92 16.65 29.91 New York 13.40 19.75 North Dakota 7.06 Ohio 16.16 22.25 17.83 19.03 Rhode Isl-ind 16.72 23.36 South Dakota 11.36 24.75 20.33 Utah 14.25 20.07 24.03 WashiBSton 9.25 21.95 6.49 28.62 APPENDIX TABLE 28. RELATION OP ALIENS, REGISTERED, CALLED, AND CERTIFIED. Total Aliens called. Eitloto total. Aliens certified. Ratio to caUed. 3, 082, 949 457, 713 14.85 76,545 16.72 52,385 22, 113 45,271 135, 387 24, 547 70, 176 7,466 4,163 25,317 71,071 9,307 229,345 76, 424 43, 249 24. 742 CO, 294 39, 744 9,604 33, 659 120, 207 135, 341 63, 187 31,205 81, 183 28,441 28, 573 5,474 6,740 113, 057 10, 491 369, 076 63, 599 19, 591 201, 090 63, 810 2.890 302, 541 12, 191 39, 049 8,002 54, 827 139, 929 12, 416 5,616 47, 032 36, 897 32, 748 60, 149 2,733 282 9,047 121 27,753 2,893 27, 543 1,043 201 2,135 196 1,035 38, 712 2,677 1,952 838 225 803 1,401 1,372 36, 970 23, 355 7,891 89 2,263 4,392 1,307 1,800 1,628 29, 729 1,230 89, 678 107 2,192 31, 510 1,112 282 68, 389 3,595 141 340 154 10, 728 2,228 782 420 5,733 3,253 5.665 521 .53 40.91 .26 20.50 11.78 39.24 13.97 8:43 .27 11.12 16.88 3.50 4.51 3.38 .37 2.02 14.58 4.07 30.75 17.26 12.49 .28 2.79 15.44 4.57 32.88 24.15 26.29 11.72 24,30 .16 n.i9 15.67 1.74 9.76 22.60 29.49 .36 3.95 .28 17! 94 13.92 .89 15.54 9142 19.06 51 2,333 16 4,150 311 2,626 64 25 342 21 217 7,097 692 231 117 61 297 204 4,201 5,654 946 14 426 1,574 231 270 214 4,374 , 103 '12, 878 12 397 6,132 174 51 14, 523 252 12 80 18 2,263 390 105 82 808 543 853 71 18.09 Arizona 25.79 13.22 14.96 Colorado 10.76 9.53 6.13 12.4-1 Plorida 16.02 10.71 20.97 Illinois 18.33 25.85 11.83 13.98 Kentucky - 12.44 7.59 21.20 14.87 11.30 Michigan . 24.21 n.99 15.73 vr: 1 18.82 35.84 Nebraska 17.67 15.33 13.14 New Jersey 14.71 N e w Mexico 8.78 New York 14.38 11.21 North Dakota ... 18.11 Ohio 19.46 15.65 Oregon 18.08 2L24 Rhode Island 7.01 8.51 23.53 11.69 2L09 Utah 17.50 13.43 19.52 14.09 16.69 15.06 13.63 PROPORTION OF ALIENS CALLED AND DISCHARGED TO TOTAL ALIENS REGISTERED IN SEVERAL METROPOLITAN CENTERS. Metropolitan centers. Total aliens registered. ^^. Percentage of alien registrants. discharged. Percenfn'e of aliens called. New York 161, 805 72, 405 32, 635 25, 189 19, 290 6,473 5,606 5,412 3,793 2.367 1,990 64, 161 29, 500 12, 524 11, 572 6,581 2,002 1,765 1,602 1, 962 608 525 39.65 40.74 38.38 45.94 34.12 30.93 3L48 29.00 51.73 25.69 26.38 55, 779 24, 597 9,183 9,809 5,604 1,800 1,709 1,274 1,761 450 491 86.94 Chicago 83.38 Philadelphia 73.33 Cleveland . 84.78 85.15 89.91 Seattle 96.83 St. Louis 79.53 89.78 74.01 New Orleans . . . 93.52 APPENDIX TABLE 33. DISTRIBUTION OF ALIENS, NEUTRAL, ALLIED, AND ENEMY." United States. Alabama Arizona Arkansas California Colorado , Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia , Idaho lUinois Indiana Iowa Kansas , Kentucky , Louisiana Maine Maryland , Massachusetts , Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri , Montana Nebraska , Nevada New Hampshire . . . . New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon * Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin , Wyoming 1, 243, 801 772, 744 975 1,882 274 41, 148 4,83S 45, 9SS 2,454 1,361 3,118 810 1,963 57, 4S2 7,123 4,506 1,842 554 1,849 9,535 5,398 86, 860 41. 951 9,975 313 5,846 6,941 1,855 2,087 8. 123 48, 539 718 170, 254 320 3,197 34, 927 843 3,675 98, 204 12, 121 233 804 794 2,520 4,641 2, 94G 1,536 10, 778 6,965 9,665 1,413 Ratio to total alien registrants. 62.13 77.81 12.49 56.85 63.84 51.73 78.48 83.30 8L06 62.76 74.38 47.39 57.83 52.34 38.87 28.54 63.97 58.51 92.42 72.07 82.42 65.02 39.83 64.54 60.66 58.92 37.80 66.51 85.55 63.06 16.48 7L14 65.31 42.44 49.39 30.11 59.71 55.78 82.41 53.81 31.54 80.28 10.34 71.16 81.61 66.04 62.58 62.92 47.08 48.04 ,274 100 12, 117 41 17, 823 2;632 152 171 1,591 65 1,585 9,403 500 4,280 3,398 55 818 414 812 4,264 3,049 8,381 49 1,442 2,043 .1,007 703 215 4,319 3,288 44 l', 773 1,522 1,312 6,568 435 46 1,096 73 19, 849 1,028 304 290 4,210 450 2,798 Ratio to total alien registrants. n.92 7.98 80.44 8.51 27.44 28.47 4.49 5.16 10.18 32.02 5.97 38.27 9.46 8.67 36.92 52.65 6.35 25.89 4.01 10.84 4.05 4.77 33.47 10.10 14.96 17.34 20.52 17.40 2.26 5.61 75.45 G.91 8.98 39.01 2.51 54.38 21.32 3.16 2.96 10.62 43.00 7.38 81.45 15.76 8.42 12.47 24.44 4.07 13.63 21.35 87 74 1,559 280 718 1,295 332 74 166 18 614 2,028 1,133 19 594 307 698 61 89 3,647 60 10, 309 22 457 2,363 97 285 3,002 65 31 314 732 97 433 171 2,184 70 Ratio to total alien registrants. Allied with enemy Ratio to total alien registrants* 22.68 .58 15.35 2.40 2.99 1.23 1.97 2.92 1.79 4.78 2.49 4.31 3.95 11.17 5.14 8.55 5.25 .18 8.20 .76 3.17 4.54 3.92 6.16 2.61 14.22 1.51 .94 4.74 L38 4.31 4.49 6.07 3.34 3.47 4.63 1.71 .44 7.16 12.32 4.45 3.00 L06 1. 4.17 2.51 L54 10.64 2. 130 93 4,430 1,571 9,258 282 98 170 162 491 28, 233 5,447 1,512 1^3 327 350 666 13. 463 5^548 104 1,755 2,489 1,348 589 1,1 20. 464 292 42, 241 104 940 31, 655 337 883 69, 280 2,087 123 335 78 1,270 784 321 403 1,803 3,484 6,580 830 10.38 6.49 19.29 6.82 16.80 15.80 9.57 5.84 3.42 14.88 11.85 28.40 40.03 13.04 13.67 21.13 10.35 3.39 8.8& 12.77 26.43 22.15 21.44 18.21 21.13 27.46 14.58 11.26 26.59 6.70 17.65 21.22 12.48 44.76 12.04 14.35 39.35 14.19 28.41 13.14 7.89 5.21 12.02 8.89 17.33 10.47 31.47 28.06 28.22 I At the time of compUlnj theso returns Austria.Hungary was not an enemy. PENDIX TABLE 33A. NATIONALITY OP ALIENS. Country. Total regis- tered. Total called. Called and accepted. Cobelligerents: 3, 952 3,510 27, 553 20, 840 7,491 1, 563 47, 258 ir., 479 6S,Of>5 245, ()79 21, 943 7,C95 275, 413 2, S52 7,170 15, 336 8, 003 6, 079 10, 078 24. 003 4,929 59, 145 5, 429 22, GSS 40, 063 238, 768 7,271 30, 031 1,324 1,237 9,589 7, 238 2, 522 545 14, 191 5, 714 21, 69G 90; 767 9,425 2,499 106, 078 1,090 2,237 5,830 2,393 1,951 7^824 1,758 26, 114 2,072 8,745 12, 959 92, 199 2,513 12, 159 324 241 Great Britain— England 2.159 IrcHnd . ... 2.201 Cll 2,983 Elsewhere 1 OOS 3,675 15, 348 911 Portugal 433 IS, 131 Servia 237 280 554 Neutral : Denmark .• 516 249 Norway 1,004 Sweden 1,355 224 S\vitzerland 5,794 300 1,764 Enemy: 928 13, 233 Allied with enemy: 302 Turkey 1,600 Total 1, 243, 801 457, 713 76, 545 APPENDIX TABLE 39. PROPORTION OF CALLED TO INDUSTRIAL CLAIMS MADE FOR DISCHARGE. Industrial claims granted. Non-agricultural. Industrial claims granted. United States, Alabama Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island , South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah , Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming 3, 082, 949 ,528 47, 448 42.81 52, 385 22, 113 45, 271 135, 387 24, 547 70, 176 7,466 4,163 25, 317 71, 071 9,307 229, 345 76, 424 43, 249 24, 742 60,294 39, 744 9,604 33, 659 120, 207 135, 341 63, 187 31, 205 81, 183 28, 441 28, 573 5,474 0,740 113, 057 10, 491 369, 076 63, 599 19, 591 201, 090 63, 810 2,890 302, 541 12, 191 39, 049 8, G02 54,827 139, 929 12, 416 5,616 47, 032 36, 897 32, 748 60, 149 2,733 3,226 1,441 383 227 7 146 2,690 607 6,932 3,, 81 2^440 1,745 897 297 835 641 4,762 5,896 180 3,449 1,570 4,450 1C5 93 1,167 195 5,358 1,732 3,054 4,127 2,424 170 3,585 70 1,071 1,325 4^636 363 235 1,841 1,149 455 4,140 2.38 5.87 .54 3.04 .02 .58 3.79 6.52 3.02 4.16 15.86 9.86 2.89 2.25 3.09 2.48 .53 3.57 9.33 .58 4.25 5.52 15.57 3.01 L38 1.03 1.86 1.45 2.72 15.59 2.05 3.80 5.88 L18 .57 2.74 15.40 3.40 3.31 2.92 4.18 3.91 3.11 1.39 6.88 2.85 43 6 43 1,122 661 206 151 71 1,728 107 2,025 1,304 2,372 613 313 29 147 94 297 1,924 2,077 64 883 61 2,912 396 912 1,716 423 2,548 33 113 131 606 976 761 386 14 1,612 6 2.71 12.72 34.78 45.87 53.78 66.52 48.63 64.24 17.63 29.21 40.99 34.57 25. 12 17.93 3.23 49.50 11.26 46.33 40.40 34.64 11.11 24.90 41.66 42.40 44.85 68.81 75.66 31.28 54.35 22.86 29.86 41.57 17.45 45.88 71.07 47.14 10.55 9.89 32.47 21.05 '36." 59' 41.33 33. 59 30.77 38.94 7.69 276 161 97 3,387 291 1,996 163 77 92 351 51 2,995 1,100 772 195 597 248 152 600 1,810 1,466 962 87 522 459 144 69 2,582 80 5,059 585 327 3,473 476 78 7,878 125 259 57 558 1,121 110 53 1,595 854 527 1,633 78 .73 .21 2.50 1.18 2.84 2.18 !36 .49 .55 1.31 1.44 1.78 .79 .99 .62 1.58 1.78 1.49 1.08 1.52 .28 1.02 1.84 1.61 2.63 1.02 "'.19 1.37 .92 1.67 1.73 .75 2.70 2.60 1.02 .06 .94 3.39 2.31 1.61 2.72 2.85 1,762 100 1,183 29 34 46 15 12 899 381 110 27 127 20 587 277 ^ 1 243 186 63 27 1,491 19 2,: 220 70 1,297 97 29 4,838 60 79 15 156 308 13 28 680 455 21.38 3.11 18.55 52.02 34.35 59.26 17.5:9 44.15 50.00 4.27 23,52 30.02 34.63 14. 24 13.84 21.27 8.06 41.44 21.00 42,43 40,04 28,79 1.15 32.52 46.55 40.52 43. 75 39.13 57.75 23.75 43.27 37.61 21.41 37.35 20.38 37.18 61.41 49.59 30.50 26. 32 27.97 27.48 11.82 52.83 42.03 53.28 728 18 APPENDIX TABLE 39A. CLAIMS GRANTED, CLASSIFIED BY INDUSTRIAL GROUPS. RELATIVE NUMBERS OF CLAIMS GRANTED IN INDUSTRIAL GROUPS. Total Held for service. Discharged. Total claims filed Held for service. Discharged. Industrial group. claims Died Industrial group. (number). Number. Per cent. Number. Per cent. (number). Number. Per cent. Number. Per cent. A. Agriculture, For- C. Manufacturing Indus- estry, AND Animal tries— Continued. Husbandry. (V) Food industries. 1. Agriculture (farming, truck gardening, fruit 12. Bakeries, butter and raising, etc.) 75, 170 4G, 394 61.7 28, 776 38.3 cheesef actories, candy 2. Forestry (lumbering, factories, fish ctiring etc.)..... 274 168 61.2 lOG 38.8 and packing, flour and grain mills, fruit 3. Animal husisandry (fish- ing, cattle raising. and vegetable can- "~ Bheep raising, etc.) . . . 1,602 1,061 66.3 540' 33.7 ning, slaughter and packing houses, sugar B. Mines, Quarries, and factories and refineries, Wells. other food factories. . . 2,021 1,363 67.5 657 32.5 4. Coal mines 2,601 1,750 07.3 851 32.7 (VI) Iron aJid steel industries. 13. Blast furnaces, steel roll- ing mills, iron foun- 5. Other mines (copper mines, gold and sil- ver mines, iron mines. dries, military weapons factories 14. Shipbuilding and boat building lead and zinc mines), quarries, salt mines, salt wells, and salt 540 367 321 221 5.., 218 147 40.6 39.9 10, 205 3,824 2,961 1,153 29.0 30.1 7,245 2,671 71.0 69.9 factories 15. Agricultural implement factories, automobile 6. Oil wells and gas wells. . C. Manufacturing Indus- factories, wagon and carriage factories, car tries. railroad shops; other iron and steel factories (I) Building industries. 4,201 2,016 48.0 2,184 52.0 7. House contractors, car- (VII) Leather industries. penters, blacksmiths. 16. Harness and saddle fac- machinists, electri- tories, shoe factories. cians, painters, plas- tanneries, trunk fac- terers, plumbers, etc. 3,256 1,761 54.1 1,495 45.9 tories 538 370 68.8 168 3L2 (II) Chemical industries. (VIII) Liquor and beverage industries. 8. Powder, cartridge, dyna- 17. Breweries; other liquor mite, fuse, and fire- and beverage factories. 55 47 84.6 9 15.4 works factories 9. Fertilizer factories, paint factories, soap facto- ries, other chemical 2,878 1,0GS 37.1 1,810 62.9 (IX) Lumber and furniture industries. 18. Box factories (wood). factories 700 310 44.4 389 55.6 furniture factories. piano and organ fac- (Ill) Clay, glass, and stone industries. tories, saw and plan- ing mills, other wood- working factories 653 489 74.9 163 25,1 10. Brick, tile, and terra- cotta factories, glass (X) Metal industries {except factories, lime,cement, 1 iron and steel). and gypsum factories, marble and stone 19. Brass mills, clock and 1 watch factories, cop- yards, potteries 404 268 66.3 136 33.7 per factories, gold and silver factories. (IV) Clothing industries. jewelry factories, lead and zinc factories, tin- 11. Clothing factories, glove plate factories, tin- factories, hat factories, ware and enamelware shirt, collar, and cuff factories, other metal factories 574 398 69.3 176 30.7 factories 2,376 981 41.3 1,395 58.7 EEPOBT OF THE PROVOST MARSHAL GENERAL. 91 CLAIMS GRANTED, CLASSIFIED BY INDUSTRIAL GROUPS— Continued. RELATIVE NUMBERS OF CLAIMS GRANTED IN INDUSTRIAL GROUPS— Continued. Total claims fllod (number). Held for service. Discharged. Industrial group. Total clainM filed Held tor service. Discharged. Industrial group. Number. Per cent. Number. Per (number). Number. Per Number. Per cent. C. Manufacturing Indus- E. Trade and Merchan- tries— Continued. dise IN General. (XI) Paper and printing in- dustries. 26. Banking and brokerage, insurance, real estate, sundry wholesale and 20. Blank-book, envelope, tag, paper-bag, and paper-box factories, paper and pulp mills; printing and publisli- retail trades, buying and selling of all sorts of articles, any kind of store or shop, grain elevators, stock yards, warehouses and cold- 379 305 80.9 74 19.1 storage plants 4,403 3,752 85.2 654 14.8 ° (XII) Textile industries. F. Public Service (Not El.sewiiere Classified). 21. Carpet milla, cotton 27. Public administration mills, hemp and jute (United States, State, mills, knitting mills, county, city, and lace and embroidery township employees). mills, linen mills. national defense rope and cordage fac- ' (Army and Navy), tories, sail, awning. marshals, sheriffs, po- and tent factories, licemen, watchmen . . . 1,255 887 70.7 368 29.3 silk mills, woolen and worsted mills, sundry G. Professional Service. and textile mills 1,054 647 60.8 407 39.2 28. Actors, professional showmen, etc., artists. (XIII) Miscellaneous indus- sculptors, and teach- tries. ers of art, clergymen, ofBcials of lodges, re- 22. Broom and brush fac- ligious and charity tories, button facto- workers, legal profes- ries, charcoal and sion, literary profes- coke works, cigar and sions (journalists. tobacco factories, elec- etc.), dentists, physi- tric light and power cians and surgeons, plants, electrical sup- veterinary surgeons, ply factories, gas musicians and teach- works, oil refineries. ers of music, scientific rubber factories. professions, teachers. straw factories, other professors in colleges. miscellaneous indus- etc., other profes- tries 5, 179 2,463 47.6 2,716 52.4 sional pursuits, stu- dents 4,842 4,094 84.7 748 15.3 D. Transportation. H. Dome.stic and Manual 23. Steam railroads 5,256 3,433 65.3 1,823 34.7 Service in General. 24. Telegraph and telephone 29. Barbers and hairdress- companies 1,925 893 46.4 1,032 53.6 ers; bartenders; cooks; 25. Water transportation; hotel keepers and construction and managers; janitors; maintenance of porters; restaurant, streets, roads, sewers, cafe, and lunch-room and bridges; electric keepers; saloon keep- and street railways; ers; servants; waiters; livery stables; truck transfer, cab and clerks; laundries; other occupations 1,839 1,363 74.0 476 26.0 hack companies; ox- press companies; Pos- tal Service 1,619 1,036 64.2 583 35.8 30. Laborers (in general) Total 902 140, 892 683 75.7 219 24.3 82, 656 58.7 58, 236 41.3 APPENDIX TABLE 41. APPEALS TO THE PRESIDENT AS OF DECEMBER 19, 1917. Alabama Arizona Arkansas California Colora.U. Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia.. Florida Ge ai^ia Iciaho Illin.ig In liana loxii Kaj'.sas Kenliicky .Louisiana Jlaino Marylaul Massai-'husetts Migon _ Pennsylvania , RliKle" Island South Carolina South Dakota Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West \'irginia Wiscousm ; Wyoming Alaska Hawaii Porto Rico Received and filed. 20 313 58 1,481 G81 1,978 537 501 36 282 82 G97 1,330 17 1,061 172 659 IS 30 761 363 696 810 172 13 350 140 345 318 448 48 36 340 243 159 1,140 18 222 588 36 3.58 52 6 441 18 17 23 52 650 160 123 107 16 38 412 66 1,967 829 2,064 569 624 138 71 437 298 861 1.452 21 1,193 191 666 29 16 297 38 1,354 436 732 1,172 226 19 793 28 158 369 370 511 68 45 478 294 272 1,307 Resolved and records returned. Non-agricultural. 387 501 1,021 32 15 522 262 101 272 122 1 191 9 85 38 125 237 31 268 142 55 483 13 2 5 57 5 367 45 33 238 29 261 10 11 8 37 40 19 8 106 34 57 47 3 appca able. APPENDIX TABLE 45. LOCAL BOARD STATISTICS.' Numbers of registrants, gross quota, credits, net quota, called, etc., sTiown hy local hoards in every State. ALABAMA. Local board. Total regis- trants. Gross quota. EnUst- ment creciits. Net quota. Called for tion. Failed to ap- pear. Aecopted Rejected Total claims for exemp- tion and discharge. Claims allowed. Claims disal- lowed. Cerlified to district boards. 1,298 1,567 1,932 2,003 2,788 3,639 4,669 2,859 4,075 2,013 1, 962 1,354 2, OitO 3,911 3, 126 1, (M2 1, 027 1,506 "i,'796' 1,050 2,247 1,930 1,810 1, 038 3,044 1,816 2,443 1.687 2, 945 2, 560 2,117 L844 4,569 1,386 1,822 2,092 886 1,427 1, 544 2,604 2, 633 6,929 2,633 3,539 L420 2,760 1,562 2,321 2, 623 154 182 235 223 55 94 53 102 99 88 182 121 164 214 275 169 240 119 209 119 93 .137 284 169 120 ,134 182 186 112 77 171 83 99 170. 119 224 54 235 256 113 4 331 148 186 52 90 148 122 42 254 587 220 300 138 234 221 183 283 110 145 410 219 157 170 84 300 277 542 645 526 728 850 537 800 398 1,250 338 284 607 1,317 606 555 364 43 11 24 68 76 54 59 25 61 30 26 47 97 24 32 184 210 404 413 392 537 638 407 607 312 839 221 203 415 733 583 377 264 73 27 103 166 110 123 136 76 134 61 350 87 58 145 487 135 146 100 112 157 344 275 304 410 421 268 480 208 713 174 118 340 498 417 175 37 103 274 232 209 257 254 322 514 60 230 408 379 218 144 75 54 70 43 95 153 167 80 158 110 199 114 20 90 38 71 31 149 Baldwin 114 1-1- 2 1-3- 1 ■yon Barl.our Bil)l. 225 181 190 1-3- 3 15iK\iixi:iUAM, No. 2 1-3- 4 : ]?I!!MIXGHAM, No. 3 1-3- 5 ' liir.MixcHAM, No. 4 283 214 284 1-3- 7 1-3- 8 1-1- 3 1-1- 4 1-3- 9 I'.lRMINflHAM^ No. 6 Blouut ]Jall 20 Pike 174 3-1-39 523 3-2-21 Polk 306 3-1-40 Pope 102 3-1-41 228 282 3-1-^13 Pulaski No 2 39 3 1-44 Randolph 167 3-1-47 318 3-1-45 Saline 244 3-2-22 Scott 152 3-2-23 212 3 9 94 Sebastian No. 1 Sebastian No 2 148 3-2-25 499 151 104 88 307 136 286 343 234 235 348 18 45 7 71 16 210 172 214 119 155 3-2-26 450 3-1-46 105 330 3-2-27 Union 282 3 1-49 \'an Burcn 444 87 3-1-50 White 2,919 300 3 1 51 Woodruff 1,999 20 3-1-52 • CALIFORNIA. ^ 2,107 2,828 600 38 1,109 2,013 2,266 2,323 768 951 3,446 2,802 287 711 4,126 3,443 3,718 927 110 112 34 "., 164 184 73 82 283 284 11 61 380 351 152 900 584 424 s. 57 13 646 296 194 219 70 114 436 315 194 389 286 131 47 29 63 192 4 12 169 4-1-25 4-3- 1 4-3 2 Alameda No. 3 630 4 128 374 11 44 58 . P °® 318 849 1,300 310 330 1,533 1,268 56 320 2,459 2,298 854 299 33 148 23 23 18 163 533 641 152 175 31 168 270 77 47 169 530 714 130 144 144 435 605 107 111 25 95 83 26 33 115 4 1 3 284 503 272 93 110 155 374 20 28 321 4-3- 3 Butte 114 4 3 4 114 4-3-5 4-9 X 136 104 42 160 192 52 33 680 802 30 141 1,387 1,128 434 205 212 208 19 73 417 414 163 40 540 655 9 161 1,407 1,239 469 127 332 509 5 149 l!l67 440 91 208 146 5 139 72 29 36 326 4-2- 2 Contra Costa No 2 739 33 83 172 22 22 461 4 2 3 Del Norte 20 4-3- 6 77 4 5 1 Fresno (county) No. 1 Fresno (county) No. 2 Fresno (city) 638 4-5- 2 4-5- 3 884 439 106 153 287 13 522 4-3- 7 Glenn 133 I Quota mied by voluntary enlistments. KEPOKT OF THE PEOVOST MAESHAL GENERAL. Numbers of registrants, gross quota, credits, net quota, called, etc., shown by local boards in every State — Continued , CALIFORNIA— Continued. Total regis- trants. EnUst- credits. Called for examina- tion. Failed to ap- pear. Rejected cally. Total claims for exemp- Claims 4-2- 4 4-.5- 4 4-5- 5 4-5- 6 4-5- 7 4-5- 8 4-2- 5 4-3- 8 4-4- 1 4-4- 2 4-4- 3 4^- 4 4rA- 5 4-4- 6 4-4- 7 4-4- 8 4-4- 9 4-4-10 4-4-11 4-4-12 4-4-13 4-1-14 4-4-15 4-4-16 4-4-17 4-4-18 4-4-19 4-4-20 4-4-21 4-^1-22 4-4-23 4-4-24 4-4-25 4-4-2G 4-5- 9 4-2- 6 4-5-10 4-2- 7 4-5-11 4-3- 9 4-3-10 4-2- 8 4-2- 9 4-3-11 4-1- 5 4-1- 6 4-1- 7 ^1- 8 4-1- 9 4-1-10. 4-1-11 4-4-29 4-4-30 4-4-27 4-4-28 4-3-12 '1-3-13 4-5-12 4-5-13 4-3-14 4-3-15 4-3-16 4-2-10 4-5-14 4-5-15 4-5-16 4-4-31 4-4-32 4-1-33 4-.V17 4-2-11 4-5-17 Humboldt 3,584 5,978 930 Inyo Kern No 1 . . 3,481 3,643 2,315 Lake . 399 1, 092 756 243 1,628 1,134 L362 1, 890 1,600 1,745 1,470 2,474 4,513 L074 994 1,642 4,063 5,504 8,331 3,365 2,318 Los Angeles No. 1 Los Angeles No. 2 Los Angeles No. 3 Los Angeles No. 4 Los Angeles No. 5 Los Angeles No. 6 Los Angeles No. 7 Los Angeles No. 8 Los Angeles No. 9 Los Angeles No. 10 Los Angeles No. 11 Los Angeles No. 12 Los Angeles No. 13 Los Angeles No. 14 Los Angeles No. 15 Los Angeles No. 16 Los Angeles No. 17 Los Angeles No. 18 Lo3 \ngeles No 1 Loa Anfeles No 2 '' 396 Los Angeles No. 3 2,239 Los Angeles No 5 4, 383 2,552 1,935 Los An<'eles No 8 484 Marin 2,201 Merced Modoc 608 Mono 254 Napa 1,441 Nevada 1 287 2,810 Oakland No 3 1 923 1 864 Oakland No 7 1,780 Oran<»e No 1 2,265 2, 473 Pasadena No 2 1,302 1 910 1,121 2,148 2,596 3,994 2,837 978 Sacramento No. 1 Sacramento No. 2 San Benito . San Bernardino No. 1 San Bernardino No. 2 San Bemaa-dino No. 3 3,883 1,714 1,683 San Diego No. 2 San Diego 3,022 2,474 San .loaquin San Joae San Luia Obispo 3,225 2,902 1 953 San Mateo 3 156 San Francisco No. 1 San Francisco No. 2 San Francisco No. 3 g', 163 X 162 3,147 1,638 4,136 442 2(g) 548 363 134 866 832 564 752 679 1,200 516 1,359 1,600 500 502 800 1.800 2,807 2,802 1.573 1,766 702 1,050 765 2,012 1,300 902 99 1,000 617 502 1,500 1,349 i;923 1,124 1,858 1,754 1,290 1,190 1,301 285 344 835 640 1,102 1,548 1, 056 1,200 1,250 477 1,742 1,100 429 1,268 996 1,255 1,800 736 602 1,996 2,222 1,282 1,398 1,692 200 928 564 227 131 221 174 76 292 490 403 551 445 689 305 624 812 300 331 451 956 1,123 1,044 1, 089 875 351 533 419 919 579 525 69 549 503 111 619 572 152 1,561 84 713 391 227 97 332 153 86 521 474 313 420 377 630 329 631 723 322 350 410 937 733 540 849 779 361 518 445 1,042 695 422 58 527 356 52 390 616 96 115 1,233 810 312 1,104 838 632 650 157 926 426 402 1,273 833 705 240 839 801 1,516 636 923 840 854 604 642 160 192 462 295 1,282 731 875 440 821 681 640 546 532 156 174 404 285 470 579 502 468 498 259 691 558 114 513 465 541 807 331 245 1,173 770 727 APPENDIX TABLES. 97 Numho i of registrants, gross quota, credits, net quota, called, etc., shown ly local hoards in every State — Continued. CALIFORNIA— Continued. Local board. Total regis- trants. Gross quota. Enlist- ment credits. Ket quota. CaUed for exanuna- tion. Failed peai:. w Rejected Total claims for e.xemp- tion and discharge. ^^a. Claims disal- lowed. Certified to district boards. 4 1 15 San Francisco Xo. 4 San Francisco Xo. 5 San Fkancisco Xo. 6 San Francisco No. 7 San Francisco No. 8 San Francisco No. 9 San Francisco No. 10 San Francisco No. 11 San Francisco No. 12.... San Francisco No. 13 2,602 3,430 3,629 2,414 2,678 3,790 4,278 2, 439 5, 548 10, 398 4,075 2,230 2,394 1, 859 2,089 270 2,791 3,373 2,049 1,783 3,949 5,143 1,016 309 3,389 2,173 1, 166 2,981 1,537 1,248 264 307 386 334 333 336 254 404 280 424 167 182 • 95 178 27 271 356 112 101 401 445 65 'I, 208 133 128 337 107 102 1, 362 1,214 2, 341 1,955 1,986 1,332 1,761 1,410 2,320 1,818 2,046 1,002 1,008 450 801 104 1,686 1,673 647 603 2,002 3,031 260 34 17 136 52 67 95 170 85 175 390 152 106 38 3 101 13 197 164 5 10 198 274 16 838 867 1,672 1,106 1, 336 857 823 668 1,160 627 1,140 430 510 230 381 02 1,059 944 372 271 1,378 1,356 181 374 210 533 469 335 207 302 335 398 214 230 156 216 82 115 21 324 197 101 172 255 462 50 684 655 1,067 1,129 1,077 706 1, 055 704 1,082 912 1,196 676 660 280 397 44 824 1,045 303 194 998 1,562 110 592 570 916 1,006 905 677 892 674 1,009 831 925 495 486 233 351 31 579 818 265 166 948 798 80 85 81 151 123 129 163 30 64 81 271 81 74 47 46 13 142 161 1,428 50 41 30 358 390 4-J-17 756 428 4 1 19 564 4 1 90 486 475 4-1-22 4 1 ''3 316 577 4-1-24 6,6i2 537 2; 085 113 721 737 4 2 13 Santa Clara No 1 ... 230 4-2 14 Santa Clara No 2 535 214 261 31 324 893 186 119 83 4 53 37 245 129 4-3 18 Shasta 226 4 3 19 Sierra 37 480 4-2 16 493 4-2 17 177 4-2-18 Sonoma No. 2 434 475 684 100 115 35 221 74 139 35 121 9 140 565 4-3 22 580 4-3-23 Sutter 107 4-3-24 127 1,155 767 954 1,621 622 450 "25 71 136 195 256 57 49 584 374 347 800 351 253 19 183 175 154 215 96 77 77 592 300 61 515 271 • 16 52 29 33 Tulare No. 1 325 4 5-20 650 136 344 192 142 309 8 85 40 186 4-3-26 4 5-21 206 Ventura 786 276 183 705 252 120 47 24 63 476 4 3-''7 Yolo 178 Yuba 166 1,133 453 975 313 1,881 1,062 2,663 784 325 338 2,072 696 411 588 192 971 2^291 1,837 1,518 1,336 1,680 3,216 2.316 2,575 126 342 434 656 1,103 1,253 891 183 383 615 43 132 52 112 36 159 122 310 92 37 40 289 81 46 68 22 112 30 18 62 10 23 18 236 85 1 16 200 77 24 1 42 102 34 50 26 136 104 74 6 38 24 39 4 22 22 20 70 32 44 35 29 26 32 61 46 49 13 30 41 69 46 35 45 17 44 65 5 424 200 285 150 671 664 401 19 172 110 303 45 155 92 70 290 140 223 221 246 121 174 . 403 216 231 43 132 157 217 861 190 180 85 158 251 14 29 20 18 6 13 76 40 1 14 8 11 4 3 8 6 16 11 11 18 31 16 16 66 17 17 1 5 6 14 12 11 47 1 16 27 1 352 148 171 86 537 380 246 ' IQ 67 34 158 32 97 59 40 195 108 162 155 151 ■ 69 90 161 160 148 20 98 108 145 227 120 119 45 87 169 11 43 32 78 58 139 87 115 8 91 33 134 11 55 25 24 79 21 55 44 67 33 152 39 18 34 35 48 118 59 37 31 50 55 3 223 96 130 51 319 254 179 4 45 34 127 38 74 42 18 119 72 114 114 132 57 52 101 110 150 1 46 49 145 77 75 35 35 98 8 203 93 120 50 305 230 162 1 42 31 114 30 71 18 15 97 67 107 79 78 45 33 98 79 142 1 42 43 43 132 67 60 29 79 7 20 3 10 1 14 28 17 3 1 33 13 8 3 24 3 19 3 7 24 21 8 19 3 31 8 4 6 43 10 10 15 6 19 143 51 5-2 2 Arapahoe 78 6-1- 2 5-1- 3 5 14 Archuleta 38 Baca 227 Bent 165 5-2 3 Boulder 97 5-1- 5 5-2-4 6-2 5 Chafiee 9 40 Clear Crenk 34 6-1- 6 Colorado Springs 59 5 6-1- 8 6-1- 9 29 42 31 6-1-11 »-2- 6 l>-2- 7 Delta 103 39 Denver No 2 53 48 (h2- 9 B-2 10 76 Denver No 5 36 6-2-11 6-2-12 6-2-13 6-2-14 57 83 67 Denver No 9 2,147 16 40 60 76 129 146 103 22 45 71 6 1,794 2 10 9 7 83 110 6 1 6 1 108 13 6-2-15 6-1 13 48 Eagle 55 Elbert 97 5-1-14 El Paso 93 (i-l 15 53 Garfield 63 24 5-2-18 Grand 54 6-1 17 107 6-1-18 Hinsdale 12 I Quota filled by voluntary enlistments. yS EEPOET OF THE PEOVOST MARSHAL GENEEAL. Numbers of registrants, gross quota, credits, net quota, called, etc., sTiown ly local hoards in every State — Continued. COLORADO— Continued. Enlin- ment credits. CaUed for examlna- tioa. Accepted He]ect«d Huerfano . . . . Jackson Jefferson Kiowa Kit Carson . . . Lake La Plata Larimer Las Animas... Lincoln^ Logan Mesa Mineral Moffat Montezuma... Moutrote , Morgan Otero Ouray Park Phillips Pitkin Prow.Ts PUEBU) No. 1 Pueblo No. 2 Pueblo Rio P)lanco.. . Rio Grande... Routt Saguache San Juan San Miguel... Sedgwick Sunnnit Teller Washington... Wold No. 1... Weld No. 2... Yuma 1,651 198 1,139 442 706 1,211 989 2,168 4,434 866 1,790 1,555 67 633 485 1,003 1,411 2,023 300 239 398 277 1,426 1,852 2,873 1,281 306 611 1,019 415 381 785 357 193 1,009 1,165 2,908 1,941 1,288 95 260 174 136 9 276 168 952 350 400 2,054 286 739 453 25 126 189 378 378 126 112 104 225 124 450 1,156 1,351 737 70 306 202 190 210 60 211 207 46 3 158 119 211 265 261 1,420 212 17 1 109 75 344 137 197 1,221 121 342 207 7 35 78 179 202 47 42 26 111 54 450 1,200 947 723 CONNECTICUT. Bkidgepobi No. 1.. Bridgeport No. 2. . Bridgeport No. 3., Bridgeport No. 4. , Bridgeport No. 5. , Bbidgepoet No. 6. , Hartford No. 1 Hartford No. 2 Hartford No. 3 New Britain No. 1 New Britain No. 2 New Haven No. 1. New Haven No. 2. New Haven No. 3. New Haven No. 4 . New Haven No. 5. New Haven No. 6. Stamford Waterburt No. 1 . WATERB0RY No. 2.. Waterbttry No. 3.. Hartford No. 1 Hai-tford No. 2 Hartford No. 3 New Haven No. 4. . New Haven No. 5. . New Haven No. 6. . New Haven No. 7. . New Haven No. 8. . 5,577 ^ 450 3,310 582 1,042 352 1,899 1,720 91 3,071 250 1,350 100 243 680 586 94 4,610 373 2,500 287 1,075 350 1,612 1,232 96 4 774 2,600 2,575 318 981 424 1,425 1,547 1 395 30 4,323 348 259 2,316 259 1,235 312 3,932 3,047 921 319 2,490 354 1,569 506 1,163 1,116 47 4,960 249 1,250 68 588 374 562 414 41 6,059 6,009 301 320 1,203 1,705 49 217 801 1,241 308 221 561 904 497 834 64 70 1,974 i,i64 1,028 939 3,428 840 327 230 1,600 120 741 215 759 92 2,395 127 707 30 355 194 364 296 42 4,006 213 1,400 113 415 258 686 565 121 4,171 223 1,775 184 449 791 729 62 2,124 116 602 26 373 98 343 76 3,367 2,791 178 146 1,000 122 43 387 469 200 241 567 399 448 340 119 59 2,201 1,198 4, 488 522 344 178 1,055 56 422 195 630 589 33 6,009 490 3,484 716 1,272 389 1,915 1,124 122 2,929 229 1,499 286 625 233 761 629 130 6,824 1,847 574 554 3,600 459 1,124 331 2,171 2,098 73 4,250 498 251 274 1,134 39 761 334 497 403 94 5,339 632 232 400 3,000 395 1,230 639 1,497 1,401 96 3,918 459 148 311 2,370 330 741 623 1,091 1,041 50 3, 462 404 264 140 1,405 35 279 110 323 278 45 3,590 419 158 261 1,203 110 591 280 307 235 70 2,279 268 43 225 1,507 152 643 196 863 819 44 2,569 299 141 158 776 71 481 140 429 330 99 6,276 748 128 620 4,720 456 2,123 643 774 588 186 > Quota filled by volimtar; eaUstmenta. APPENDIX TABLES. 99 Numbers of registrants, gross quota, credits, net quota, called, etc., shown ly local boards in every State — Continued. CONNECTICUT— Continued. Local board. Total regis- trants. Gross quota. EnUst- ment credits. Net quota. Called for examina- tion. Failed to ap- pear. Accepted Rejected Total claims for exemp- tion and discharge. Claims aUowed. Claims di,sal- lowed. rertified to district boards. 6-1-12 6-1-13 6-1-14 6-1-15 New London No. 9 New London No. 10 New London No. 11 Fairfield No. 12 3,365 21847 2,633 4,266 2; 234 38G 345 308 501 260 224 448 203 271 234 207 239 273 219 . 74 144 119 178 156 105 135 199 88 50 118 62 54 113 120 271 164 382 214 104 119 134 249 , 115 221 116 145 ■185 901 037 1,301 850 2,984 1,100 1,204 72 38 86 49 577 79 46 452 321 696 531 1,658 771 467 286 161 340 272 561 250 259 365 282 409 421 1,674 590 674 307 244 360 344 1,068 534 641 42 20 49 68 106 56 33 196 174 279 211 6-1-16 6-1-17 Fairfield No. 13 Fairfield No 1-1 611 278 6-1-18 6-1-1 f) Fairfifld No. 15 AyindlKim No. 16 241 6-1-20 6-1-21 Windham No. 17 Litrhlii'ld No IS 2, 339 3, 145 1,714 2,279 1,985 1,563 2,044 468 1,632 445 1,200 799 747 850 10 135 25 118 49 26 39 272 801 216 541 503 385 290 111 327 139 220 296 256 236 220 1,182 166 634 289 301 482 163 1,142 137 579 319 57 40 29 55 5 75 96 172 381 6-1-22 Litchfield No. 19 133 6-1 23 283 6 1 25 Middlesex No 22 149 6-1-27 291 DELAWARE. Kent , NewCaHle Siis--ex , WlLMlXriTON' No. 1 WiLMl.N-GTONJ No. 2 WiLMINOTOM No. 3 Wilmington No. 4 2, 185 3, 550 3,52S 3, 324 3,007 3, 564 350 1,156 1,511 1,101 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 8 11 District of Columbia: No 1 3,386 3,730 2,810 2,748 3,182 3,667 1,928 3,708 2,605 3,296 1,641 90 107 80 79 91 105 55 106 74 95 47 351 290 301 258 373 741 290 387 352 464 356 49 44 16 12 6 17 9 43 7 39 11 180 194 188 196 268 526 161 235 221 275 224 70 52 70 50 78 165 97 110 80 150 107 181 154 134 180 208 429 125 155 172 211 165 90 57 82 71 151 350 115 91 143 158 157 71 70 52 109 .•56 79 10 62 37 53 8 293 8 1" No 2 160 No. 3 130 125 8 15 N0.5 No 6 142 8 16 206 68 8 18 No 8 136 8 19 No 9 107 8 1 10 No 10 151 8-1-11 No 11 3,796 2,867 75 9 11 Alachna 2,752 478 319 56 142 146 91 81 81 59 71 146 434 333 294 409 66 186 109 56 359 130 265 100 14 129 39 It 28 6 17 91 143 224 43 134 66 74 20 8 86 33 117 219 42 13 107 57 49 53 53 54 55 291 109 251 275 112 48 273 97 148 166 226 260 92 438 200 27 10 370 119 42 66 207 79 125 66 82 13 252 Baker 53 9-1-2 Bav Bradford 1, 256 789 707 753 504 617 1,222 2; 234 2, 657 3,608 569 1,415 940 490 3,079 1,120 2,268 2,371 3, 250 3, 735 907 578 224 273 298 108 233 270 1,782 309 1,425 51 48 68 23 10 31 33 712 41 184 220 411 116 111 198 40 155 204 763 222 543 857 116 60 40 77 22 47 18 307 36 272 348 216 59 108 145 36 79 173 780 116 320 435 160 52 105 113 36 60 121 724 49 256 360 56 7 3 34 ...... 46 56 54 64 75 187 9^2- 3 67 59 9 13 Calhoun 83 994 Citrus 50 Clay 96 101 9 '' 7 Dade . . . 384 q 9 8 De Roto 158 Duval 285 275 9-1-5 9 16 Gad=iden 448 253 132 1,527 553 511 800 673 822 329 34 17 7 172 11 81 115 104 198 17 293 129 85 799 367 323 508 444 485 200 121 50 40 241 186 107 131 125 139 113 198 104 824 247 222 355 239 300 157 134 86 36 217 168 291 183 159 68 64 18 3 231 30 ■■"94" 56 141 89 144 92 43 9 2 12 445 S 1 7 Holmes 141 150 9-2-13 J.^CK.SONVILLE No. 1 Jacksonville No. 2 J.-VCKRONVILLE No. 3 Jefferson 241 201 9-2-15 9-1- 9 1,117 104 465 12 305 132 'Quota filled by Toluntarj enlistments. 100 EEPOET OF THE PROVOST MARSHAL GENERAL. Numbers of registrants, gross quota, credits, net quota, called, etc., sTioum Try local hoards in every State — Continued. FLORIDA— Continued. EnUs^ ment credits. Fall«d to ap- pear. Accepted fX: Rejected Total claims for Claims disal- lowed. Lafayette — Lake Lee Leon Levy Liberty Madison Manatee . Marion Monroe Nassau Okaloosa Grange Osceola Palm Beach. Paacoe Pinellas Polk Putnam St. Johns St. Lucie Santa Rosa.. Seminole Sumter Suwannee. . . Tampa No. 1 Tajupa No. 2 Taylor Volusia Wakulla Walton Washington . . 857 1,156 837 1,309 1,132 530 1,374 1,592 L591 782 1,417 546 1,369 776 1,905 3,643 1,350 1,395 859 1,392 996 643 1,598 2,249 3,052 1,569 1,928 461 965 923 927 377 172 185 103 311 165 410 810 1,707 544 721 100 240 173 333 1,018 110 200 35 120 95 Appling Atlanta No. 1. Atlanta No. 2. Atlanta No. 3. Atlanta No. 4. Atlanta No. 5. Atlanta No. 6, Atlanta No. 7, Augusta No. 1 Augusta No. 2 Bacon Bakor Baldwin Banks Barrow Bartow Ben Hill Berrien Bibb Bleckley Brooks Bryan BuJloch Burke Butts Calhoun Camden Campbell Candler Carroll Catoosa Charlton Chatham Chattahoochee. Chattooga Cherokee Clarke 864 101 57 44 175 3 141 34 87 76 12 3,407 155 631 66 438 129 272 212 60 2,429 110 684 63 138 199 247 241 1 2,435 3,385 110 154 460 308 38 50 332 276 90 32 256 126 196 47 60 78 3,001 136 589 46 274 183 242 217 25 1,964 400 39 296 65 210 188 24 2,833 2; 559 2,252 1,370 129 469 26 292 69 243 '3 65 62 60 65 120 182 15 16 75 110 27 49 51 71 17 6 571 446 479 56 38 18 101 51 49 39 34 6 555 65 23 42 84 1 55 23 46 16 29 1 169 136 37 99 271 23 208 62 117 108 9 906 107 16 92 489 21 322 146 290 252 88 1,021 125 76 50 200 10 145 46 103 79 23 2,055 239 30 209 1,269 36 897 301 779 726 63 1,223 141 80 61 300 40 171 89 112 98 16 2,200 259 70 189 496 81 318 127 181 169 12 1,149 133 35 98 400 16 271 113 195 145 50 880 103 23 80 338 9 244 85 160 113 47 1,946 225 24 201 602 48 255 208 230 83 147 493 57 38 19 57 3 45 9 27 22 5 2,247 263 54 209 839 85 574 265 574 277 297 2,681 311 70 241 482 47 362 73 225 183 92 1,110 129 61 68 207 7 166 28 116 37 79 751 87 26 61 120 11 89 20 60 14 15 494 58 21 37 133 13 83 87 67 41 16 868 98 18 80 260 25 240 37 139 90 49 481 84 11 73 246 8 179 52 155 109 46 309 54 255 1,517 96 924 498 660 618 42 471 55 10 45 165 1 112 50 71 68 13 367 45 22 23 56 2 39 14 25 14 11 1,416 164 30 134 364 70 212 82 81 47 34 391 46 11 34 113 1 70 37 60 28 24 121 19 102 659 23 350 286 264 216 39 1,360 160 24 136 800 21 520 269 414 360 64 2,019- 233 52 181 737 92 441 204 897 222 106 ' Quota filled by voluntary APPENDIX TABLES. 101 Numiers of registrants, gross quota, credits, net quota, called, etc., sTiown iy local ioards in every State — Continued. GEORGIA— Continued . credits. Accepted Kejectei physi- cally. Total claims for exemp- Claima disal- lowed. 10-1-18 10-1-19 10-2-14 10-1-20 10-2-15 10-2-16 10-3- 8 10-1-21 10-3- 9 10-2-17 10-1-22 10-1-23 10-2-18 10-1-24 10-3-10 10-3-11 10-2-19 10-1-25 10-1-26 10-2-20 10-2-21 10-1-27 10-2-22 10-2-23 10-1-28 10-1-29 10-1-30 10-1-31 10-1-32 10-1-33 10-1-34 10-3-12 10-2-24 10-1-35 10-2-25 10-1-36 10-1-37 10-1-.38 10-1-39 10-3-13 10-1-40 10-1-41 10-1-12 10-1-43 10-1-44 10-3-14 10-2-26 10-1^5 10-3-15 10-2-27 10-3-16 10-2-28 10-3-17 10-3-18 10-3-19 10-2-29 10-2-30 10-3-20 10-2-31 10-1-46 10-3-24 10-2-32 10-3-21 10-3-22 10-3-23 10-1-17 10-1-4S 10-1-49 10-2-33 10-1-50 10-2-34 10-3-25 10-2-35 10-1-51 10-1-52 Clay ClaVton Clinch Cobb Coffee Colquitt.... Cohimbia... Coweta Crawford. . . Crisp Dade Dawson.... Decatur Dekalb Dodge Dooly Dougherty.. Douglas E'.arlv Echols Effingham. , Elbert Emanuel... Evans Fannin ' Favette I Flovd Forsyth Franklin. .. I Fulton i Gilmer Glascock. . . I Glynn I Gordon. Grady I Greene. . . . Gwinnett. . Habersham. Hall Hancock. .. Haralson. . . Harris Hart Heaid Henr>' Irwin Jackson Jasper , Jeif i :a\TS JeXersou Jenkins Johnson Jones Laurens Lee Liberty Lincoln Lowdnes Lumpkin Mcl'uffie Mcintosh Macon No. 1. Maco.v No. 2. Macon Madison Marion Meriwether... Miller 1 Milton I Mitchell I Monioe Montgomery.. Morgan i Murray 2,212 2,271 2,143 1,025 2,375 1,593 284 345 2,290 2,102 1,974 1,933 1,608 771 1,427 478 879 1,601 2,220 570 946 838 2,624 629 350 1,533 1,313 1,496 2,070 827 2,037 1,432 1,019 1, 130 1,221 814 1,608 2, 038 1,082 1,829 1.346 667 1,805 1,159 1,286 1,045 3,307 928 931 740 2,445 387 935 384 2,691 2,224 1,134 1,362 572 2,292 798 506 1^554 1,151 1,694 710 134 150 122 888 107 108 86 220 45 109 44 866 19 28 11 40 18 5 64 78 34 41 16 Quota filled 184 558 500 361 332 1,297 307 476 87 345 804 823 259 292 331 236 250 624 700 200 486 587 997 631 1,328 225 1, 050 287 646 339 300 522 600 528 400 914 497 200 334 337 488 204 1, 206 308 160 218 658 220 387 62 326 342 270 660 240 1,168 819 440 210 824 316 400 by volnntarj 102 KEPOET OF THE PROVOST MAKSHAL GENERAL. Numbers of registrants, gross qiiota, credits, net quota, called, etc., sTiown ly local boards in every State — Continued. GEORGIA— Continued. Muscogee Newton Oconee Oglethorpe Paulding Pickens Pierce Pike Polk Pulaski Putnam Quitman Rabun Randolph Richmond Rockdale Savannah No. 1. Savannah No. 2. Schley Screven Spaulding....'... Stephens Stewart Sumter Talbot Taliaferro Tattnall Taylor Telfair Terrell Thomas Tift Toombs Towns Troup Tiirner Twiggs Union Upson Walker Walton Ware Warren Washington WajTie Webster Wlieeler White Whitfield Wilcox Wilkes Wilkinson Worth Total Gross quota. EnUst- Net quota. Called tor Failed Accepted Rejected claitas for Claims allowed. Claims Certlfiad rogls- ment examlna- %T ^i^: ti;s"Sd lowed. boards. discharge. 4,016 467 198 269 1,401 60 981 420 430 416 14 565 1,687 195 37 158 619 58 402 159 312 249 63 2W 939 110 14 ,96 312 18 215 79 141 91 50 124 1,608 188 12 176 708 14 482 203 300 271 29 22S 965 113 21 92 514 11 324 179 301 254 47 IK . 621 73 16 57 254 ■^ 40 150 1.39 11 61 896 104 34 70 560 43 296 222 201 184 17 8f 1,629 188 91 97 368 17 217 128 150 93 42 117 1,638 191 37 154 649 31 446 151 334 273 61 17b 1,009 118 14 104 406 36 269 101 172 125 47 14! 1,169 137 21 116 306 8 227 79 100 63 37 161 205 34 6 28 56 2 44 10 29 11 18 3! 377 20 28 157 4 83 70 56 52 4 3f 1,212 142 25 117 334 23 199 102 142 86 59 32: 859 99 16 83 386 15 237 134 127 123 4 9S 700 79 20 59 368 27 222 107 156 132 24 9( 3.112 84 348 37 189 106 62 50 12 10; 4,508 877 672 121 341 43 217 81 117 78 39 139 350 41 23 18 72 5 33 24 14 10 4 3S 2.004 235 53 182 604 41 423 140 256 240 16 18; 1.870 218 167 51 303 47 193 63 150 112 38 ii: 806 94 26 68 336 41 231 64 167 139 28 92 767 87 20 67 360 19 237 104 140 .38 9i 2,237 259 72 187 500 46 329 125 219 62 157 26; 856 100 18 82 219 10 169 40 110 83 27 672 79 13 66 162 8 102 52 72 22 50 8( 1,191 140 63 77 430 33 294 103 196 174 22 10( 847 20 79 293 25 183 110 92 11£ 1,275 145 53 92 499 35 303 156 176 166 10 13( 1,427 166 39 127 400 38 245 112 165 80 85 16( 2,356 274 82 192 676 54 454 168 347 236 111 22( 1,267 147 66 81 300 24 179 94 115 73 42 101 1,139 133 63 70 300 42 178 80 129 70 59 10' 294 35 22 13 58 27 31 18 12 1£ 3,219 376 111 265 1,075 154 702 219 499 417 82 43i 1,219 142 30 112 325 40 234 51 156 98 58 14 924 108 17 91 284 17 223 44 139 91 41 123 449 52 9 43 223 6 138 79 104 88 16 4' 1,132 132 43 89 358 18 222 118 153 102 51 111 1,703 200 23 177 654 42 360 250 252 168 84 19' 1.852 210 49 161 622 30 464 128 357 227 130 25: 2,039 237 166 ^1 430 57 236 137 176 156 20 9' 991 115 17 273 10 193 70 139 94 45 10^ 2,384 276 42 234 566 25 476 62 343 222 284 28C 1,116 130 77 53 216 17 157 43 106 89 17 6 358 41 15 26 74 8 51 15 38 16 22 3 771 90 .27 63 250 14 147 89 108 88 15 6. 457 53 22 31 137 8 81 48 57 45 12 3i 1,219 145 59 86 492 25 322 145 327 213 31 Hi 1.378 160 53 107 300 14 121 59 159 133 26 12 1,774 205 29 176 352 5 201 91 161 125 36 21. 1,028 120 18 102 274 23 184 02 119 114 5 lor 1,904 222 30 192 582 40 408 134 275 176 99 231 11-2- 1 Ada 959 306 3,806 825 855 1,626 544 1,281 387 1,158 1,815 414 283 206 1,531 110 36 434 96 187 61 141 44 134 210 47 35 24 183 38 9 168 46 27 84 23 199 7 151 147 15 8 1 213 72 27 266 50 71 103 38 % '\ 32 27 23 315 81 1,353 200 344 506 121 1 3 170 17 91 22 2 245 63 918 160 166 354 56 15 265 23 63 80 21 158 31 630 113 140 264 52 139 25 530 92 120 209 46 17 94 21 20 55 104 11 •> 2 Adams 39 11-2- 3 98 11 2- 5 Bingham 174 11 2 6 Blaine . . 53 11 '' 32 Boise Boise 142 19 92 27 50 40 10 50 11 2 8 Bonne\-ille 293 133 78 72 28 24 4 202 128 60 56 63 37 11 8 123 104 33 27 113 84 19 26 10 5 14 1 89 11 1 3 61 11 2- 9 11-2-11 Canyon ' Quota filled by voluntary enllstmenM. APPENDIX TABLES. 103 Numbers of registrants, gross quota, credits, net quota, called, etc., sTioion hy local boards in every 5tofe— Continued. IDAHO— Continued. Cassia Clearwater 432 CiL-i.-r 543 Elni.a-R 620 Fremont 1,492 Gem 566 GoodinE; 668 Idaho 1,074 857 Kontenai 1 323 Lemhi 504 574 Lincoln Nez Perce 1 214 Oneida 686 PaY<'ttt 445 Shoshone Teton 3, 034 365 Twin Falls 2,505 Valley Washinston 911 197 1,105 118 46 Accepted physi- cally. 2,051 2,217 3,442 1,251 1,299 748 2,017 2,106 239 255 400 147 151 87 43 76 196 39 68 21 196 179 204 108 83 66 199 203 70 160 147 171 182 171 309 180 207 194 199 237 243 266 382 306 375 249 293 259 208 311 262 389 295 372 356 300 269 346 313 414 228 846 899 1, 121 360 300 195 821 857 29 93 41 i" 28 59 650 5fi4 893 233 243 80 549 569 167 208 150 127 43 54 244 152 441 373 641 107 122 121 290 350 416 279 591 96 118 90 260 281 50 11 3 31 30 276 12 7 1 308 12 3 1 260 137 13;; !<> Q 3 so 12 5- 1 289 483 82 188 192 81 28 45 299 12^t- 1 Carroll 1,614 1,649 2,395 2,903 4, 873 3, cS58 4, 039 3, 837 3,413 949 495 544 542 724 1,471 508 608 829 868 756 1,453 1,089 1,375 1,696 1,700 987 1,209 892 850 1,404 1, 058 1,778 1,903 1,777 1,717 3,136 1,175 1,475 1,507 1,832 1,100 60 4 51 7 169 213 63 96 110 12 107 114 40 130 66 177 50 55 76 105 49 166 149 128 144 248 100 159 149 109 45 717 392 412 395 355 848 322 397 553 431 443 711 616 980 862 955 717 847 580 515 411 833 1, 034 1,484 1,086 904 1, 073 863 791 1,436 721 172 88 81 117 106 409 72 92 120 425 233- 453 158 265 414 106 220 307 161 225 366 152 293 412 141 181 578 212 195 111 287 142 430 227 322 230 206 538 190 199 318 318 245 544 596 798 839 999 ■ 484 568 421 380 584 624 1, 009 716 1,135 1,086 1, 866 688 1,462 1,041 895 616 379 186 199 198 138 438 126 129 244 244 140 517 564 758 737 935 406 503 61 325 506 536 757 661 1,022 983 1,787 557 1,282 810 819 548 51 31 HI 73 68 100 64 70 74 74 105 15 42 40 102 61 78 65 347 55 78 88 252 30 113 103 75 31 137 127 76 68 331 Cass 235 Champaign No. 1 Champaign No. 2 Chicago No. 1 263 12-8- 5 12-1- 1 621 2G8 230 311 502 12-1- 3 12 1 4 Chicago No. 3 Chicago No. 4 Chicago No. 5 237 279 12-1- 5 352 241 12-1- 7 12 1 8 3, 006 2,S06 3,217 4,186 3,650 5,612 2,496 3, .327 2,947 3, 275 3,270 2, 8li6 5,252 5,019 4,718 5,104 3,136 3,249 3,320 4,362 4,849 2,902 298 375 CUK-AGO No. 9 337 402 12 1 11 Chic vgo No 11 444 12-1-12 Chicago No. 12 462 324 Chicago No. 14 349 12 1 15 317 y) 1 16 Chicago No. 16 258 494 339 1^ 1 10 Chic\go No 19 576 19 1 OQ Chic vgo No ''O 619 523 446 12 1 ''3 CmcAQo No '3 408 12 1 ''4 323 12 1 ''S 360 Chicago No. 26 Chicago No. 27 Chicago No. 28 „. 476 621 12-1-28 341 ■ Quota filled by voluntary enlistments. 104 REPOET OF THE PKOYOST MARSHAL GENERAL. Nuvihcrs of registrants, gross quota, credits, net quota, called, etc., shown hy local hoards in every State — Continued. ILLINOIS— Continued. Accepted Rejected physi- cally. Total claims for exemp- Clalms lowed. Chicago No. 29. Chicago No. 30. Chicago No. 31. Chicago No. 32. Chicago No. 33. Chicago No. 34. Chicago No. 35. CiiicAc.o No. 36. Ciii.-AGo No 37. CiiicAoo No. 38. Chicago No. 39. Chicago No. 40. Chicago No. 41. Chicago No. 42. t'liicAGO No. 43. Chicago No. 44. Chicago No. 45. Chicago No. 46. Chicago No. 47. Chicago No. 48. Chicago No. 49. Chicago No. 50. Chicago No. 51. Chicago No. 52. Chicago No. 53. Chicago No. 54. Chicago No. 55. Chicago No. 56. Chicago No. 57. Chicago No. 58. Chicago No. 59. Chicago No. GO. Chicago No. 61. Chicago No. 62. Chicago No. 63. Chicago No. 64. Chicago No. 05. Chicago No. 66 Chicago No. 67 Chicago No. 08 Chicago No. 09 Chicago No. 70 Chicago No. 71 Chicago No. 72 Chicago No. 73 Chicago No. 74 Chicago No. 75 Chicago No. 76 Chicago No. 77 Chicago No. 78 Chicago No. 79 Chicago No. 80 Chicago No. 81 Chicago No. 82 Chicago No. 83 Chicago No. 84 Chicago No. 85 Chicago No. 86 Christian Clark Clay Clinton Coles Cook No. 1 Cook No. 2 Cook No. 3 Cook No. 4 Cook No. 5 Cook No. 6 Cook No. 7 Cook No. 8 Cook No. 9 Crawford Cumberland 3,284 3,011 2,4'14 5,157 2,844 5,144 6,870 2,877 4,021 3,176 6,020 4,836 3, 961 3,784 4, 550 4,536 2,186 4,554 5,413 2,145 3,933 3,767 3,956 3,348 3,662 2,945 3,740 2|097 3,166 3,142 3,089 3,277 2, 973 3,917 3,229 4,411 3,055 8,600 4,304 3,740 3,043 2,141 2,323 2,827 2,453 2,572 3,060 2,070 2,969 5,281 2,520 4,007 3,685 3,079 3,761 3,377 2,660 3,140 1,633 1,368 1,817 2,791 2,592 3,188 2,095 3,811 3,976 6,511 2,631 3,604 3,588 1,805 4,047 210 114 1,036 801 605 3,000 733 1,905 2,399 1,206 1,753 171 4,083 951 1,600 1,373 2,200 3,494 880 1,576 1,000 922 1,758 1,030 2,150 1,701 l!579 1,000 1,036 1,356 1, 053 1,006 1,070 1,217 990 1,430 1,391 1,510 1,400 2,900 2,248 1,525 1,350 1,293 772 1,207 1,251 882 1,085 1,808 949 1,943 1,080 1,691 1,207 1,063 795 1,000 464 489 582 1,004 1,500 1,358 1,494 2,260 1,481 1,537 1,069 973 1,200 1,064 1,519 472 1,040 1,474 596 1,128 1,173 446 1,130 782 440 707 894 782 1,180 1,044 848 855 540 595 913 837 622 692 885 746 375 1,037 1,092 823 1,596 1,434 1,217 970 523 607 721 516 955 929 667 661 1,612 713 1,175 759 887 606 655 302 369 458 711 1,007 1,043 947 1,181 1,051 1,183 773 752 636 766 245 387 241 1,637 418 1,188 1,945 633 985 698 2,870 314 1,196 887 1,598 2,022 471 635 420 552 1,148 415 1,047 930 1,024 685 392 1,796 1,377 699 563 392 305 439 345 622 679 1,061 494 1,075 577 842 577 479 435 445 205 254 247 461 592 720 703 1.' 426 321 218 1,070 218 1,105 1, 425 012 2,851 855 1,389 '450 581 383 507 1,031 253 1,010 925 1,004 599 286 306 736 435 648 579 534 518 1,650 1,068 059 537 1,108 745 357 300 494 485 149 APPENDIX TABLES. 105 Numbers of registrants, gross quota, credits, net quota, called, etc., sTiown ly local boards in every State — Continued. ILLINOIS— ContiBued. Total truits. EnUst- meat credlU. Accepted tilt Rejected physi- cally. Total claims for exemp- Clalms disal- lowed. DeKalb Dewitt Douglas Dupago East St. Louis No. 1. East St. Louis No. 2. East St. Louis No. 3. Edgar Edwards Efiingham Favctto Ford Franklin Fulton No. 1 Fullon No. 2 Gallatin Grv SPiilNGFlELD No. I, SMU\ 1, 502 1,712 306 1.411 953 1,454 1,241 1,3S3 2,003 1,592 979 1,409 2. 035 1,265 1,466 478 2,039 3,131 3,418 1,436 878 1,025 2,776 1,479 65 85 111 700 402 300 1,292 539 500 665 550 755 1,806 1,154 807 1,] 1,107 1,056 901 300 527 518 395 766 1,050 105 440 174 500 200 500 600 805 1,422 842 1,250 777 294 927 420 338 449 495 244 362 498 386 398 492 255 204 966 402 381 354 259 578 1,102 533 524 517 915 484 513 618 414 1,050 431 183 300 311 252 598 816 80 332 14S 344 147 343 482 495 1,015 546 775 497 198 70S 273 273 146 81 148 IS 40 253 196 28 91 60 240 81 137 146 184 4'>. 112 164 71 168 97 173 144 290 91 162 89 193 51 185 229 171 485 143 314 190 306 139 162 2 9 197 237 108 Numbers of registrants, KEPOET OF THE PKOVOST MAESHAL GENERAL. quota, credos, net quota, called, etc., shown ly local hoards in every Stote— Continued. INDIANA— Continued. Local boanl. Total regis- trants. Gross quota. Enlist- credits. Net quota. Called for examina- tion. Failed to ap- pear. ar "3? Total claims (or t'ionaSd discharge. Claims allowed. Claims disal- lowed. Corafied to district boards. lS-i-22 13-3-33 13-3-34 13-3-3.5 13-1-27 13-1-28 13-2-27 13-4-23 13-3-30 13-3-37 13-2-23 13-1-29 Sullivan 2,461 683 2,492 3,799 3, 655 1,295 441 1.176 2,532 2,730 2,179 839 1,467 1,219 2,703 1,065 1,599 1,364 1,247 298 80 73 13 225 67 129 197 325 53 54 118 204 256 183 56 116 113 254 99 137 % 1.224 264 640 842 1,307 241 270 452 700 1,118 766 216 530 576 1,126 574 672 112 17 7 33 129 4 15 13 37 42 42 9 20 8 57 4 21 779 178 ^432 697 875 176 197 808 543 874 532 141 354 414 835 457 448 374 68 161 192 303 61 70 123 108 207 192 66 156 162 234 106 203 535 107 282 362 658 136 149 170 852 589 386 89 192 249 644 839 808 505 102 260 327 430 101 121 144 2.56 645 269 45 179 151 449 228 231 30 A 35 128 16 i 44 117 98 95 111 77 274 Terre Haute No. 1 Terre Haute No. 2 204 736 428 157 55 138 281 320 265 104 176 148 410 103 104 1 20 77 64 48 60 35 283 594 77 86 162 Vermillion \\Ea^hy^y^y.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. AVarrnn 287 838 281 91 157 13-4-2.5 676 1,126 Way:ne No 2 . . . 462 192 159 151 109 55 180 32 833 217 13-1-30 13 '^ 32 WTiitley 600 19 393 188 247 192 55 203 14-2- 1 Adair 1,302 1,494 2,428 1,343 2,233 1,853 2,486 1,374 159 120 187 329 136 265 220 320 183 208 186 194 192 226 213 190 438 342 179 173 119 158 271 57 84 33 137 33 80 105 196 35 135 138 60 65 68 73 65 644 291 147 40 19 66 79 102 36 154 192 103 185 114 124 148 131 137 134 127 158 140 125 (') 51 32 133 100 92 192 94 70 (') 123 151 57 60 72 162 93 71 71 71 39 293 79 249 182 68 230 110 117 137 116 109 124 214 69 409 884 226 752 421 500 799 11 2 30 6 53 19 18 18 166 62 324 610 180 485 329 392 623 37 7 238 41 213 73 90 151 91 39 157 560 94 380 191 230 347 35 99 405 32 303 111 217 291 32 4 58 18 62 27 80 13 64 107 14-1- 1 14-9 3 230 204 14S 224 14-1 3 Blackhawk 219 14-2- 5 174 r. 337 14-1- 5 14 1 () v. ^ ^ „ 1,924 1,496 1, (178 1,991 1,743 1, 610 4,194 3,823 l,(i31 1, 309 830 1,590 2.120 1,999 1, 816 3,039 2. 221 2.359 2,269 2.713 975 1.244 1. 4G0 3,038 3,616 2,743 1, 576 3, 083 1,105 3,395 1,536 1,277 2, .542 1, 7.30 1,679 1,392 1.546 1.391 1.521 349 418 454 517 580 301 6 6 17 16 14 2 282 292 385 443 403 244 61 120 52 57 161 51 149 WO 247 243 221 149 90 ill 190 58 67 59 129 61 53 163 48 182 259 14-1- 8 14 1 9 Calhoun 200 258 347 18G 14-1-11 14-1 r' 304 100 466 270 314 584 338 221 16 3 13 12 13 7 3 4 211 77 362 218 212 440 270 188 73 20 91 40 89 109 68 29 135 39 170 149 122 210 153 114 126 36 92 71 60 99 138 105 9 3 78 78 62 111 16 5 OS 38 14-1-14 14_9 7 Chickasaw Clarke 270 147 152 349 14-2- 8 1^2-9 14-2-10 14-2-11 14 '' 12 139 Clinton No 2 494 338 222 276 330 363 99 125 92 Council Bluffs 400 602 234 215 144 364 342 300 323 183 400 1,186 308 239 879 451 834 461 414 600 310 17 41 7 4 11 15 4 23 29 10 31 6 14 67 6 5 79 28 10 6 5 15 19 •276 388 174 135 121 293 252 203 244 131 278 927 203 618 444 146 633 816 255 861 363 265 268 107 549 44 51 12 52 83 56 25 32 91 193 91 325 140 34 •172 108 68 46 11 194 254 147 94 91 200 134 134 188 81 214 622 111 437 222 70 364 194 138 245 192 181 186 31 97 84 29 37 129 108 68 203 503 102 329 146 62 66 138 52 186 167 158 173 40 48 25 10 62 144 5 36 80 13 11 116 7 108 75 8 298 56 84 59 25 13 161 Dallas 210 14-2-13 14-2-14 14-' 15 Davenport No. 1 Davenport No. 2 Da^^s 86 523 142 185 200 406 70 23 107 70 94 14-2-16 241 Dektt-are 12G Des Moines No. 1 DBS Moines No. 2 Des Moines No. 3 Des Moines No. 4 104 14-2 IS 178 \4-9- 19 131 14-2-20 14-2-21 14-1 18 1,138 384 102 451 207 123 315 196 171 173 176 152 199 91 23 203 25 55 85 86 54 36 60 43 75 79 476 105 14-1 19 298 239 14 1 ''2 Fayette 561 14 1 23 Floyd 179 14 1 ''4 Franklin 203 203 189 14-1 25 Grundy 144 14-2-24 Guthrie 110 I Quota filled by voluntary enlistments. APPENDIX TABLES. Numhers of registrants, gross quota, credits, net quota, called, etc., sTiown IOWA— Contimied. 109 local hoards in every State — Continued. Hamilton Hancock Hardin Harrison Henrj- Howard Humboldt Ida Iowa Jackson Jasper Jefferson Johnson Jones Keokuk Kossuth Lee Linn Louisa Lucas Lyon Madison Mahaska Marion Marshall Mills Mitchell Monona Monroe Montgomery Muscatine O'Brien Osceola Page Palo Alto Plymouth Pocahontas Polk Pottawattamie . Poweshiek Ringgold Scott Shelby Sioux City No. 1. Sioux City No. 2. Sioux Story Tama Taylor Union Van Buren Wapello Waixen Waehington Waterloo Wa jTie Webster Winneshiek. Woodbury... Worth Wright Total regis- trants. 1,828 1,484 2,0G0 2,195 1,359 1,167 1,399 1,329 1,527 1, G08 2,542 1,354 2,456 1,673 1,663 2,558 8,175 2,327 1,058 1,290 1,571 1,275 2,226 1,955 2,829 1,123 1,702 1,944 1,458 2,708 1,918 1,006 1,896 1,523 2,333 1,672 2,350 2,452 1,772 1,063 1,823 1,921 3^054 3,420 2,448 2,779 2,095 1,258 1,360 1,003 3,159 1,466 3!739 1,264 8,632 1,249 1,841 2,081 1,189 1,976 Enllst- meDt credits. Failed toap- p«»r. Rejected Total claims for exemp- Claims disal- lowed. 15-1- 1 AUen 1,877 943 1,934 895 1,672 266 122 276 104 189 279 73 180 46 172 148 68 17 15-1- 8 Anderson 227 720 226 76 8 67 26 11 179 454 179 65 40 219 21 U 129 276 114 38 18 83 93 16 111 7 21 22 81 15-1- 8 Atchison 208 15-2- 1 15-2- § Barber Barton 43 ' Quota filled by voluntary 110 KEPOET OF THE PROVOST MAKSHAL GENERAL. Numlers of registrants, gross quota, credits, net quota, called, etc., shown hj local hoards in every State — Continued. KANSAS— Continued. Local board. Total regis- trants. Gross quota. Enlist- ment credits. Net quota. Called for examina- tion. Failed to ap- pear. Accepted at w Total claims tor exemp- tion and discharge. Claims allowed. Claims disal- lowed. Certified todisti!£t boards. 1,586 1,791 3,819 727 978 2,906 260 206 316 68 116 349 47 55 156 197 154 61 333 208 205 188 70 57 81 3 10 63 76 128 23 237 52 1 128 (■) 59 268 44 36 93 121 26 96 101 102 65 41 122 ^'^43 67 89 64 36 'I2 19 44 8 16 21 97 20 14 7 4 114 104 12 37 35 8 51 185 22 243 66 103 18 126 77 15 125 41 67 87 (') (') 64 7 113 7 46 70 148 16 (') ed by vol 52 4 800 11 87 162 1 576 28 1 105 126 2 379 110 2 331 16 48 64 1 15 2 3 Butler 231 15-1- 6 15-1- 7 15 1- 8 240 1,108 200 116 486 300 75 235 500 467 554 260 300 492 23 51 3 5 9 16 4 28 54 18 22 8 39 25 168 675 133 97 308 194 64 142 351 349 305 219 190 383 49 372 64 14 136 86 10 65 95 73 133 33 70 81 103 207 53 219 123 44 96 249 250 304 140 150 255 66 165 64 51 159 73 24 75 215 251 128 147 204 37 42 4 1 60 50 20 12 34 28 52 12 3 102 Cherokee 321 15-2 4 505 544 1,297 1, 537 979 591 2,700 2,897 2,498 803 2,297 1,275 1,963 710 737 1,263 1,038 737 1,464 1,596 796 460 760 122 511 116 1,134 244 1,160 1,818 182 406 1, 279 1,175 1,471 1,394 1,396 3,655 3,838 1,068 273 1,135 620 2,789 318 2,320 918 1,026 348 2,125 CI™"'::::::::::::::::: 47 158 15 2 7 Cloud 140 15 1 9 Coffey 41 64 165 116 15 1 12 638 267 162 256 73 105 147 109 75 160 231 110 50 11 49 11 154 27 136 189 17 39 154 154 170 180 435 20 226 40 434 30 38 58 45 39 162 139 91 6 17 2 47 3 138 6 39 169 3 32 153 150 56 76 154 95 58 15 1 13 170 15-1-14 Douglas Edwards 165 326 283 189 100 13 32 10 13 15 113 209 182 135 66 85 49 31 19 71 156 163 75 48 51 109 115 70 30 20 47 45 5 18 62 15 1 15 Elk 100 15 2 12 Ellis 100 70 15-2 14 44 15-2-15 Ford 552 100 184 284 30 22 23 50 334 80 30 26 17 304 309 37 190 130 18 54 17 4 3 1 2 9 3 24 12 2 1 "'■■32' 3 ""io" 392 56 159 248 13 20 16 33 57 210 57 24 18 1 12 270 247 28 148 114 18 160 27 25 36 14 1 5 7 16 82 11 4 7 226 49 98 144 11 16 31 35 136 49 14 8 194 32 93 122 3 15 7 24 35 82 22 12 7 32 7 5 •22 8 1 1 54 1 121 15-2-16 15 '' 17 Ge^ry Q ove 34 93 15-2-18 126 10 15-2-20 15 2 21 Gray 5 9 18 26 15 2 23 Harper ' 116 15 " ''4 Harvev 38 18 12 15-1-lS 1 4 34 25 9 42 6 10 160 214 11 130 81 10 8 113 143 9 104 65 8 2 47 71 2 26 16 2 5 146 208 15 1 "^1 Kansas City No. 1 Kansas City No. 2 Kans.\s City No. 3 Kans.\s City No. 4 14 44 49 15-1-24 15-2-28 974 27 125 71 359 27 418 110 155 36 262 225 224 226 62 193 151 834 31 42 19 174 5 175 44 52 18 136 148 109 101 21 126 64 9 370 307 926 901 200 387 79 400 250 85 250 170 234 279 9 1 52 71 4 23 3 34 6 2 11 8 5 28 319 197 644 50 678 149 302 67 319 206 78 182 135 192 124 51 91 230 IG 152 46 62 9 47 7 47 27 37 101 200 101 473 27 420' 78 203 42 223 159 63 103 88 117 123 188 422 11 374 70 188 35 ■ 165 130 45 24 79 74 80 12 33 51 16 52 7 15 7 43 29 18 79 9 43 43 125 15 2 30 Kiowa 99 15 1 25 Labette 217 39 15 1 ''6 326 15 "^ 32 81 15-1-27 112 T OCTln 32 15-1-28 173 15 2 35 McPlierson 1,842 1,751 1,784 639 1,486 1, 253 2,126 2,334 1,000 274 1,465 2,025 684 1,004 1,426 1, 140 901 105 24 192 15-2 36 Meade 66 15-1 30 112 133 15-1-31 15-1-32 508 119 23 192 238 74 121 205 139 116 728 55 16 79 231 51 57 123 131 Quota mi 1 1 4i5 452 41 182 212 559 70 20 3 9 1 11 8 6 3 206 25 399 34 147 168 429 33 84 17 44 7 24 36 169 30 123 17 250 29 103 208 110 17 239 21 89 76 164 13 ....... 8 4 27 44 88 8 181 15 1 35 11 Ness 61 90 344 15-2-11 15-2^2 21 untary «nl stments. APPEimtX TABLES. Ill Numbers of registrants, gross quota, credits, net quota, called, etc., sTiown by local hoards in every State — Continued. KANSAS— Continued. Pawnee Philips Pottawatorai Pratt Rawlins Reno Republic Rice Riley Rooka Rush. RtisselK Salina Scott Sedgwick. . . Seward Shnwfiee.... dan. Sh( rman Smith Stafford Stanton Ste^'ens Sumner Thomas TOPEKA No. 1.. ToPEK.i No. 2.. Tn'go Wahaunseo Wallace Washington WicHiT.\ No. 1.. Wichita No. 2., Wichita Wilson Woodson Wyandotte Accepted Claims KENTUCKY. Adair Allen Anderson Ballard Barren Bath Bell Boone Bourbon Boyd Boyle Bracken Breathitt. Bfeckenridge Bullitt Butler Caldwell Calloway Campbell Carlisle Carroll Carter Casey Christian Clark Clay Clinton Covington No. 1. Covington No. 2. Crittenden Cumberland Da\de33 1,237 1,300 748 1,026 1,882 1,048 2,604 674 1,545 2,366 1,193 1,560 1,465 698 1,216 1,048 1,694 2,709 706 1,733 1,236 2,925 139 78 91 90 (') 119 53 109 106 139 299 75 63 140 137 87 119 79 574 229 318 365 468 1,103 294 112 EEPOKT OF THE PROVOST MAESgAL GENEEAL. Numbers of registrants, gross quota, credits, net quota, called, etc., sTiovm hj local hoards in every State — Continued. KENTUCKY— Continued. Tdtal regis- trants. EnlIs^ ment credits. Called for Failed Accepted examina- to ap- physi tion. pear. — eally. Total Rejected claims loi physi- exemp- 16-1- 7 16-3-17 16-3-1 S 16-3-19 ] 6-3-20 ] 0-3-21 16-3-22 10-2-n 16-3-23 16-3-24 16-3-25 16-2-12 16-1- 8 10-1- 9 10-3-20 10-2-13 lG-1-10 16-3-27 16-3-28 16-1-11 16-2-14 16-3-29 16-2-15 16-2-16 16-3-30 10-1-12 16-3-31 16-3-33 16-3-34 16-3-35 16-1-13 16-3-36 16-3-37 16-3-38 16-3-39 16-3-10 16-3-41 16-3-42 16-3-13 16-2-17 16-2-18 10-1-1-1 10-1-15 10-1-10 10-1-17 IG-l-lS 10-1-19 10-1-20 10-2-19 16-2-20 10-3-71 10-2-21 10-3-14 10-3-45 16-1-21 16-2-22 16-3-46 18-3-47 10-1-22 16-3-48 16-3-49 16-1-23 16-1-24 16-3-50 16-3-51 16-2-23 10-1-25 16-3-52 16-3-53 16-2-24 16-1-26 16-3-54 16-3-55 Elliott.. Estil... Fayet to Flemins Fknd..^ Fraukiii Gallatin. Garrard.. Grant. . . . Graves... Grayson. Greonup.. Hancock . . Hardin Harlan Harrison.. Hart Henderson Henry Hickman. , Hopkin.5.. Jackson... Jefferson.. Jessamine . Johnson. . . Kenton . . . Knott Knox Larue Laurel.... Lawrence. I^ee Leslie Letcher . . Lewis Lexin-otox Lincoln Li\in:;;-'on Losau Louisville No. 1. Louisville No. 2. Louisville No. 3. Louisville No. 4. Louisville No. 5. Louisville No. 6. Louisville No. 7. Lyon McCracken McCreary McLean." Madison Magoffin Marion Marshall Martin Mason Meade Manifee Mercer Metcalfe Monroe Montgomeiy Morgan Muhlenberg Newport. Nicholas.. Ohio Oldham... Owen Owsley 1,094 1,222 2,024 1,410 1,483 354 992 762 2,586 1,459 955 1,503 549 1,597 i;740 l!419 2,334 1,096 898 2,928 871 3,681 993 1,671 1,447 1, 295 1,336 732 1, 194 3,292 1,247 855 1,946 1,364 3,843 2,640 2, 184 2,076 3,881 4,179 643 3,175 931 991 1,997 1,150 1,103 1,251 634 1,439 409 1,095 695 1,018 926 1,314 2,385 1,302 2,845 781 2,053 567 1,037 507 286 396 I 446 I 427 400 582 506 1,366 481 1,072 500 582 524 332 269 31 54 Quota filled 264 1,100 230 826 107 424 142 158 36 90 12 by voluntary enlistments. ;54 22/ 44 1 3£ APPENDIX TABLES. 113 Nmnhers of registrants, gross quota, credits, net quota, called, etc., shown ly local hoards in every Sto^e— Continued. KENTUCKY— Continued. Total regis- trants. Enlist- ment credits. Called for examina- tion. Failed to ap- pear. Accepted Rejected cafly. Claims disal- lowed. 16-3-56 16-3-57 16-3-58 16-3-59 16-3-60 16-3-61 16-3-62 16-3-63 16-1-27 16-3-64 16-3-65 16-2-25 16-1-28 16-1-29 16-2-26 16-2-27 16-3-66 16-2-28 16-2-29 16-1-30 16-3-67 16-2-30 16-3-68 16-3-09 16-3-70 Pendleton. Perry Pike Powell Pulaski.... Robertson . Rockcastle. Rowan Russell.... Scott Sbelby Simpson. . . Spencer. . . Taylor Todd Trigg Trimble..., Union , Warren Washington Wa\ne Wciister.... V,1iiilev.... V.uife.;.... Woodford.. 1,930 3,952 474 2,392 326 1,056 708 832 1,336 1,378 901 626 910 lil70 473 1,553 2,387 1,087 1,214 1,891 2,171 646 1,008 210 717 1,850 152 426 a, 316 86 623 121 304 226 339 295 220 187 153 290 295 463 179 259 279 283 425 272 394 211 70 101 310 1,033 -3- 1 ■3^0 ■2- 1 ■2- 2 3- 2 ■3-41 3- 3 ■3^2 -3- 4 3- 5 ■3- (5 ■3- 7 3- 9 -3-10 3-11 ■2- 4 ■3-12 ■2- 5 3-13 ■3-14 -3-15 ■2- 6 2- 9 3-16 1- 1 ■3-43 ■3-18 ■3-17 ■3-19 ■2- 8 -3-20 3-21 ■i-^i 1- 4 1- 5 1- 6 1- 7 Acadia Allen Ascension . . . Assumption. Avoyelles- . Beauregard. Bienville,. . . Bossier Caddo Calcasieu. . . Caldwell... Catahoula Claiborne Concordia DeSoto East Baton Rouge East I'arroll East rclii'iana Evan-eliue Franklin, Grant Iberia Iberville Jackson Jefferson Jefferson Da-\ns La Salle Lafayette La Fourche Lincoln Livingston Madison Morehouse Natchitoches New Orleans No. 1.. New Orleans No. 2.. New Orleans No. 3.. New Orleans No. 4. . New Orleans No. 5. . New Orleans No. 6.. New Orleans No. 7. New Orleans No. 8. New Orleans No. 9. 32096°— 18 8 2,836 2,341 1,858 1,663 2,883 2,521 1,791 3^535 3,277 915 279 885 i 3,843 874 1,044 2,022 1,821 1,309 2,401 2,227 1,096 2,059 1,633 019 2,536 2,775 1,567 1,019 757 1,575 3|771 4,310 1,742 2,919 1,563 3,256 1,388 2,567 2,211 577 570 478 868 1,225 674 477 V 407 804 57 220 801 522 204 627 646 300 901 410 357 1,128 966 475 532 899 1,119 452 650 402 803 437 114 EEPOKT OF THE PEOVOST MAESHAL GENEEAL. Numbers of registrants, gross quota, credits, net quota, called, etc., sTiovm ly local boards in every State — Continued. LOUISIANA— Continued. Local board. Total regis- trants. Gross quota. H. Net quota. Called for Fafled to ap- pear. Accepted tit. cally. Total claims for t"n'Sd discharge. Claims allowed. Claims disal- lowed. to^distriot tion. boards. 17-1-11 17-1-12 New OnLEANS No. 10.... New Orleans No. 11.... New Orleans No. 12 New Orleans No. 13.... 2,617 2,282 1,942 4,687 2,573 1,025 1,879 2,350 2,880 1,299 1,759 2,011 514 824 204 159 127 353 122 103 189 179 217 133 173 218 53 91 58 212 131 201 198 190 251 171 250 198 96 255 160 284 155 170 110 80 73 155 676 564 456 1,513 444 321 551 508 538 340 846 650 235 219 41 33 39 52 23 16 25 48 30 14 21 36 15 16 455 387 232 971 247 233 356 373 424 172 207 446 159 164 180 144 185 479 166 106 170 87 114 115 118 168 82 55 281 209 136 766 135 116 205 225 221 90 120 284 67 80 223 130 64 492 73 23 171 173 161 34 25 182 46 74 58 79 72 89 62 47 37 52 60 56 95 102 14 6 2M 26« 168 17-1-14 '300 118 220 1,474 178 15 31 440 174 118 17 2 10 Pointe Coupee 188 17 3 24 Rapides No 1 201 591 152 206 235 62 98 64 239 147 195 19 33 17 9 7 6 27 16 233 Red River 138 17 3 V Richland 179 17 3 ''S Sabine 264 70 108 17-2-11 St Ilolern, 2,044 1,267 1,787 2,011 1,720 3,405 2,201 3,899 549 307 502 791 585 600 457 275 20 11 67 30 60 30 71 316 238 348 593 372 448 287 430 160 49 143 131 183 92 169 149 216 116 213 414 209 268 184 191 99 99 154 281 150 129 129 116 60 17 59 133 59 89 45 75 222 17-1-18 St. John the Baptist 139 183 17 3 30 St Landry No 2 441 201 396 215 448 356 105 282 195 306 282 315 207 121 83 86 173 42 11 145 44 198 158 2? 35 22 127 37 11 3 13 18 312 206 St. Mary 268 17 2 14 St Tammany 203 17 3 32 170 17-2-15 907 2,431 1,648 2,019 2,383 l!770 1,039 716 754 1,481 168 738 736 *40 253 300 641 347 160 146 481 7 31 53 14 19 38 32 22 1 8 41 119 516 426 300 , 218 164 396 181 94 112 278 49 205 243 126 16 95 196 144 58 26 162 59 255 291 163 108 96 279 59 90 44 145 13 232 287 16 66 62 142 14 55 15 77 46 7 4 147 42 34 137 55 33 29 68 loe 17 2 16 295 Union 188 284 17 3-36 Vernon 171 17 2 17 107 17 3 37 Webster 267 142 81 17 2 19 West Feliciana 100 191 18 1 1 Androscoggin No. 1 Androscoggin No. 2 3,230 2,314 3,350 i;280 2,723 1,531 2,273 2,200 2,544 1,911 3;050 a! 508 1,627 2! 695 1,414 3,043 1,423 3,132 2,870 2,548 73 72 214 222 226 I 87 65 i 85 124 174 78 78 570 326 1,099 1,098 31 10 109 69 176 158 619 635 246 148 371 382 200 117 400 511 179 62 298 313 21 45 102 198 112 18-1- 2 682 537 106 334 18 2 2 Ajoostock No 2 .... 809 373 334 18-1- 3 18-1- 4 466 179 263 524 137 37 160 928 19 14 469 63 385 35 297 25 183 10 114 61 18 2 3 Hancock 291 18-1- 6 18-1- 7 18 2- 4 560 237 117 353 618 59 30 356 Knox 1,019 381 34 21 397 238 467 124 814 166 239 83 76 46 234 18-2 5 143 18-1- 8 Oxford „.. Penobscot No. 1 „.. Penobscot No 2 293 300 20 12 64 8 180 176 15 86 60 2 140 132 11 110 106 7 SO 26 4 86 18 2- 7 884 186 755 180 92 18-2- 8 18-1- 9 18 1 10 Piscataquis „.. 8 658 164 356 167 356 663 131 271 43 182 18-1-11 275 701 638 949 403 444 42 89 47 62 18 56 174 210 346 597 192 216 84 378 245 301 114 178 117 197 238 406 197 149 90 137 182 334 164 100 27 60 49 64 33 49 101 18-2- 9 143 Waldo 162 18-2-11 Washington > 263 18-1 12 York No 1 103 18-1-13 YorkNo.2 627 471 116 • Quota filled by voluntary APPENDIX TABLES. Numbers of registrants, gross quota, credits, net quota, called, etc., shown ly local hoards MARYLAND. 115 in every State — Continued. Local board. Total regis- trants. Gross quota. Enlist- ment credits. Net quota. Called tor '^Uon. ^ Failed to ap- pear. Accepted ^c^i^;*: Rejected physi- Total clauns (or exemp- tion and discharge. Claims allowed. Claims disal- lowed. Certified to district boards. 19 3 1 Allegheny No 1 2,570 3,060 3,499 3,188 3,248 2, 3(i4 2,089 2,078 3,010 3, 455 3,088 2, 455 1,778 1, 832 2. 802 2, G29 2,108 3. 504 2,840 2,458 1,998 2,072 3,056 1,964 2,038 1,834 2,234 2,563 2,684 4,612 2,852 749 1.340 2,458 1,738 1,293 2, 238 1,069 3, 128 1,520 2, 034 1,189 21463 2,747 1,220 1,155 1,909 1,471 2, 765 2,187 2,191 1,622 171 246 200 132 70 51 81 66 144 156 178 143 88 91 151 156 115 209 162 102 104 114 172 106 67 97 111 220 225 289 218 73 100 142 30 139 107 66 231 145 32 64 104 131 197 117 118 133 191 193 102 152 850 984 749 1,024 408 259 400 478 810 775 1,102 906 411 360 863 914 558 1,131 720 413 615 1,085 608 268 373 666 815 983 1,040 1,332 246 400 894 160 556 498 275 744 569 181 305 344 712 740 300 703 536 751 750 608 566 74 45 70 69 68 16 35 40 53 45 62 89 20 19 100 18 144 23 35 47 13 47 37 18 29 49 113 42 1 8 7 2 25 30 7 29 23 9 16 ■■■■23 74 22 11 67 9 32 25 40 19 511 649 555 523 244 169 168 179 559 519 687 580 203 240 482 583 330 525 225 258 427 690 340 210 276 417 540 689 620 172 296 639 101 366 338 181 564 379 101 153 271 524 497 216 274 404 472 553 502 394 375 265 290 124 358 99 51 103 128 198 177 353 237 70 loi 281 231 182 282 142 102 99 158 395 224 58 61 202 243 237 221 511 73 248 47 190 130 67 151 167 124 73 120 169 62 164 230 57 138 223 174 171 421 436 396 150 143 166 224 411 361 545 482 202 146 335 446 249 573 360 107 149 270 487 231 85 141 294 354 450 554 227 467 195 278 139 360 259 70 105 327 323 302 392 135 121 122 178 380 329 432 369 177 120 309 401 153 425 300 76 119 245 477 192 68 138 242 166 427 267 445 61 126 433 52 143 159 114 274 226 59 80 55 93 134 4 15 50 46 31 32 91 113 19 26 26 45 96 124 60 31 30 25 10 39 11 3 52 147 23 131 109 31 34 23 44 119 25 33 11 16 201 19 3 2 Alleghony No 2 659 462 242 305 19-3- 3 19 1 1 Anne Arundel 298 204 19 ] 2 Baltimore No. 2 B.w,r; ,: , -:-..-, Bvi ,r . 1 ■... 4 Imi i,-- . -,.. :, Baltimore No. 7;;;;;'.!!! 113 19-]- 3 71 19-1- 4 135 19-1- 5 115 19 1 G 184 19-1- 7 19-1- 8 19 1 9 219 341 BALTIMORE No 9 262 19-1-10 Baltimore No. 10 Baltim..)re No. 11 Baltimore No. 12 BaitivoreNo. 13 Baltimure No. 14 BaltomiijeNo. 15 Baltim-.reNo. 10 BALTIM...RE No. 17 Baltimore No. 18 BAITPlnRENO. 19 B.u/ir:..KENo. 20 BalitmmueNo. 21 Baltimore No. 22 Baltimore No. 23 Baltimore No. 24 BallinuTo No. 1 Baltimore No. 2 Baltimore No. 3 Baltimore No. 4 Cahvrl Caroline 293 115 19 1 ]" 201 19 1 I'i; 231 204 19-1-15 19 1 ]G 320 239 149 164 19 1 19 191 19 1 '^0 213 124 94 19 ] -'"i 143 19-1-24 19-3- 4 19-3- 5 19-3- 6 19-3- 7 19-3-10 19-2- 2 19-3- 8 19 2 1 6,849 3,977 130 368 266 386 1,520 85 156 287 203 151 251 568 12 56 145 173 12 144 300 110 177 209 Cecil 50 19-3- 9 19-2- 3 19-3-11 19 3 1' Charles Dorchester 177 179 Frederick No 2 492 176 236 139 137 318 143 131 171 195 31 204 75 33 157 121 55 14 115 38 310 19 3 13 Garrett 176 43 19-3-15 19-3- 4 84 12; 376 362 133 169 308 316 408 357 310 224 289 222 102 249 261 359 291 250 110 86 122 45 67 59 55 49 49 60 114 257 19 3 17 250 19 2 5 153 19-2- 7 19-3-19 197 ■Washington No. 1 222 581 259 187 197 157 35 232 148 19 2 9 Worcester . 265 20-1- 20-1- 20-1- 20-1- 20-1- 20-1- 20-1- 20-1- 20-1- 20-2- 20-2- 20-2- 20-2- 20-2- MASSAGHUSETTS. North Adams No. 1 Ad.\md No. 2 Lee No. 3 Green-field No. 4 Northampton No, 5 Westfield No, 6 Ludlow No, 7 Amhi'rst No, 8 Ware No, 9 SOUTHBRIDGE No. 10 East Brookfield No. 11 . . Athol No. 12 Garhn'er No. 13 Leomixster No. 14 Ayeu No. 15 Marlborough No, 16. 2,376 2,333 2,155 2,958 2,917 3,190 3,190 2,387 2^890 2,366 2,555 2,633 2,775 2,473 2,747 166 177 1,064 44 474 366 437 380 67 271 113 243 1,048 55 601 267 465 364 37 306 47 276 1,557 106 700 519 756 627 98 415 194 135 751 67 353 171 318 302 16 195 219 139 711 54 473 187 322 299 23 172 113 252 1,600 733 312 894 830 64 361 115 225 1,498 154 527 258 895 802 80 802 116 244 66 855 412 554 484 86 268 1,203 48 595 201 649 570 165 200 1,029 83 439 229 481 421 60 279 145 222 1,203 107 592 373 463 421 42 303 133 209 1,150 55 406 328 785 628 157 201 95 246 1,707 159 520 553 682 634 48 243 149 700 26 475 226 286 258 28 188 125 247 1,535 165 649 443 690 631 53 315 288 69 396 25 178 157 145 130 15 118 116 REPOET OF THE PROVOST MARSHAL GENERAL. Numbers of registrants, gross quota, credits, net quota, called, etc., shovmby local boards in every Stote— Continued. MASSACHUSETTS— Continued. Local boaid. Total regls- Orosi quota. EnUst- credits. quota. Called lor Failed to ap- pear. W W Total claims for exemp- tion and discharge. Claims allowed. Claims disal- lowed. Certified to district boards. 2,876 2,577 2,122 2,648 2,307 2,298 2,715 1,233 3, 737 3,426 2,139 2,195 2, 584 2,102 3,301 2,904 2,368 3,065 2,370 2,392 2,400 2,288 2,298 2,428 2,178 2,181 2,403 376 349 315 361 341 338 358 192 445 335 343 348 345 292 353 382 329 352 339 354 361 323 340 343 335 358 432 8, 715 163 133 133 171 199 213 98 256 207 268 284 294 156 180 327 115 161 115 120 160 112 181 145 86 51 287 186 182 228 170 139 145 94 189 128 75 64 51 136 173 55 214 191 224 234 201 211 159 198 249 307 404 3,789 121 214 198 202 194 190 170 195 173 131 134 150 156 142 134 129 132 132 116 117 128 121 109 115 177 252 119 125 125 160 154 133 127 193 115 301 242 254 269 141 75 167 170 200 180 178 1,976 949 905 1,056 965 900 800 575 1,010 793 402 301 278 550 782 425 859 849 1,358 1,302 1,051 776 936 1,251 1,538 2,403 172 38 80 47 109 53 33 62 86 72 30 7 17 14 92 12 56 62 147 9 49 63 44 33 105 195 99 786 380 486 626 528 348 313 269 699 285 199 162 125 360 484 170 427 665 490 497 522 485 364 602 799 1,546 471 308 339 326 323 213 237 244 290 110 125 102 85 94 87 119 199 184 490 180 490 265 161 245 239 758 913 414 297 320 406 390 349 273 514 465 170 121 120 290 486 238 365 405 676 337 542 515 409 347 584 665 884 876 361 229 257 285 374 315 214 441 468 156 93 98 235 349 317 340 420 279 472 465 372 199 512 570 862 37 63 68 63 47 16 24 59 43 7 14 28 22 65 73 31 48 65 74 58 47 41 34 89 72 22 383 20 2 9 MiLFonD No 18 239 20-3- 1 20-3- 2 20-3- 3 20-3- 4 20 5 1 Tewksbury No. 19 Newburyport No. 20 Georgetown No. 21 GlOUCESTER No. 22 259 361 246 188 184 20-3- 5 20-5-2 20 3 6 SWAMPSCOTT No. 24 129 222 Peabody No 26 152 20 3 7 91 98 20-3- 9 20-3-10 20-5- 3 20-2-10 20-2-11 20 2 12 78 Arlington No. 30 Belmont No 31 206 232 Framinoham No. 32 81 281 249 20-6- 1 20-6-2 20-6- 3 20-G- 4 287 South Buaintrbb No. 36. . 325 247 East Bridoewater No. 38 258 191 20-6- 6 20-6- 7 20-6- 8 20-6- 9 281 North Baston No. 41 Fairiiaven No. 42 Barnstable No. 43 352 438 626 20 4- 1 East Boston No. 1 East Boston No. 2 Charleston No. 3 Boston No. 4 2,282 4,271 3,279 5; 477 4,174 4,823 3,S0O 3,680 2,407 2,485 2,601 2,965 2,417 2,438 2,361 2,271 2,678 2,011 1,919 2,950 2,177 1,849- 2,326 3,771 3^147 2,323 2,826 3! 270 2,603 2.755 2,342 4,194 3,557 2,882 2,611 2,640 2,416 4,125 2,434 3,049 3,199 3,191 3,293 3,787 2,955 511 1,499 796 2,635 1,248 1,292 810 994 1,346 673 629 700 950 772 700 700 597 677 485 602 956 493 517 629 901 • 1,211 1,226 472 1,287 732 694 836 1, 096 747 1,086 738 1,525 1,525 1,850 1,769 900 340 972 770 1,503 1.726 1,073 64 192 46 667 289 236 164 121 185 65 40 59 184 123 67 28 33 24 4 48 31 38 43 35 121 21 76 90 52 88 143 55 116 26 28 70 106 82 24 46 27 72 64 99 248 132 348 474 397 542 437 393 312 515 433 397 446 216 418 384 351 356 395 251 384 433 286 297 281 638 499 270 351 326 403 463 393 346 486 413 630 482 549 772 270 208 330 706 492 948 411 636 99 337 265 164 203 382 251 333 364 191 197 152 298 231 249 235 176 139 170 332 128 175 144 251 312 316 117 282 163 203 223 166 169 189 147 466 281 521 548 345 83 126 178 114 456 271 300 233 729 292 1,601 647 476 240 425 586 248 287 314 262 227 268 262 314 199 247 443 234 224 312 588 663 235 740 388 304 366 636 372 636 399 701 848 930 373 163 334 552 310 725 1,070 458 182 685 242 245 500 411 178 236 487 228 196 272 283 247 210 228 215 234 129 231 368 178 175 293 307 499 609 156 673 322 193 328 597 6 618 355 688 846 928 682 326 140 239 531 302 629 945 376 61 44 50 65 47 65 41 56 78 '"'52' 15 31 15 17 40 37 80 37 16 60 56 49 19 64 54 34 18 56 111 37 36 18 44 13 2 41 15 47 23 94 21 8 96 48 82 182 263 20 4 3 244 20-4 ■ 4 296 20 1 5 240 25 256 20 4 8 Bo.ston No 8 300 20-4- 9 South Boston No. 9. . . South Boston No. 10.. Dorchester No. 11 Ro.xburyNo. 12 Ro.TOURY No 13 Eoxbuhy No. 14 Boston No. 15 268 20-4-10 191 20-4-11 191 20-4-12 188 20-4-13 216 20-4-14 183 20-4-15 158 20-4-16 Ro.xburyNo. 16 Dorchester No. 17 Dorchester No. 18 Dorchester No. 19 Dorchester No. 20 Dorchester No. 21 Jamaica Plain No. 22... West Koxbury No. 23.. Hyde Park No. 24 Brighton No. 25 '.. Brockton No. 1 180 20-4-17 176 20-4-18 227 20-4-19 146 20-4-20 158 20-i-21 189 20-4-22 176 20-4-23 191 20-4-24 156 20-4-25 238 20-6-10 374 20-6-11 Brockton No. 2 730 393 250 274 273 20-5- 4 153 20-5- 5 137 20-5- 6 Cambridge No. 2 174 20-5- 7 Cambridge No. 3 223 20-5- 8 Cambridge No. 4 1,276 712 191 20-5- 9 187 20-5-10 509 353 442 249 160 327 188 20-1-10 248 20-5-11 Everett 172 20-G-12 350 20-6-13 Fall River No. 2 275 20-6-14 Fall River No. 3 312 20-6-15 Fall River No. 4. . . . 1,463 465 397 324 310 20-2-13 Fitchburq . . 196 20-3-11 95 20-3-12 580 416 129 20-1-11 225 20-1-12 713 376 189 20-3-13 Lawrence No. 1 321 20-3-14 Lawrence No. 2 213 20-3-15 LaweenceNo. 3 1,058 500 276 APPENDIX TABLES. 117 Numbers of registrants, gross quota, credits, net quota, caUed, etc., sTiown hy local boards in every State — Continued. MASSACHUSETTS— Continued. Local board. regls- tnnts. Okbs «oota. KnUs^ quota. CaUed for examina- tion. Failed t»ttD- pear. Accepted eSly' Rejected Total claims tor ticiQ and discharge. r^. Claims disal- lowed. Certified to district boards. 3,169 8,021 3,225 1,777 3,196 3,093 3,260 1,938 2.197 3,111 3,129 2,967 3,156 3,064 4,284 4, 558 3,910 2,756 2,731 2,473 5,582 5,384 4,368 3,548 2,721 3,430 3,497 4,564 4,034 4,760 3,988 99 85 102 68 136 170 133 162 167 45 144 191 175 166 271 272 146 143 147 146 148 159 177 230 94 147 128 102 148 183 162 700 944 556 563 650 840 1,029 466 840 270 1,303 1.113 1,258 1, 486 1,599 1,704 694 802 804 751 897 1,019 1, 656 1,326 652 805 851 1,001 1, 002 1,060 699 it 48 21 108 124 122 14 9 14 126 89 115 117 123 181 67 68 82 48 57 168 97 120 12 20 88 141 55 67 69 267 264 295 181 303 661 388 267 415 151 399 600 455 478 805 853 401 446 427 421 382 602 706 629 800 344 377 225 882 404 381 132 216 132 211 135 176 268 128 235 105 189 146 267 176 825 302 179 288 289 201 161 181 439 372 159 217 209 141 833 222 166 336 389 235 259 300 428 488 211 421 100 878 596 727 1,016 8.30 938 300 323 453 327 495 448 646 682 368 345 430 682 467 669 284 816 376 225 246 232 325 446 61 878 66 847 534 643 993 789 876 283 276 274 319 451 370 618 455 836 146 408 666 433 (60 266 26 11 10 13 68 103 43 160 43 26 22 62 32 41 62 17 46 106 8 44 78 28 97 18 67 22 16 34 9 18 182 20-3-17 Lowell No 2 129 20-3-18 Lowell No 3 163 1,266 912 82 204 20-5 13 Lynn No 2 296 1,123 685 203 265 20 3-21 Malden No 2 574 358 255 318 249 20-3-22 67 New Bedford No. 1 New Bedford No. 2 New Bedford No. 3 New Bedford No. 4 PiTTSFrELD 173 20 6-17 256 20-6-18 20-6-19 20-1 13 'i,'285' 464 477 436 609 193 205 290 225 206 377 20-6-20 422 122 20-5-17 Somerville No. 1 199 20-5-18 SOMERVILLE No. 2 244 1,018 582 188 Springfield No. 1 Springfiej.d No. 2 Springfield No. 3 187 20-1 15 304 20-1-16 1,207 410 838 606 723 180 244 869 171 416 137 20-5-15 231 Worcester No. 1 154 153 20-2 16 Worcester No. 3 191 179 20-2-18 Worcester No. 5 1,882 1,189 222 Alcona Alger Allegan Alpena Antrim Arenac Baraga Barry Battle Creek. . Bat City No. 1. Bat City No. 2. Bay Benzie Berrien No. 1. . . Berrien No. 2 Branch Calhoun Cass Cheboygan Charlevoix Chippewa Clare Clinton Crawford Delta Detroft No. 1.. Detroit No. 2.. Detroit No. 3.. Dbtroit No. 4.. Detroft No. 5.. Detroit No. 6.. DETRorr No. 7.. Detroit No. 8.. Deteoft No. 9.. Detroit No. 10 Detroit No. 11 DBTEorr No. 12 Dbteoit No. 13 502 67 6 62 200 17 131 62 86 71 14 916 107 48 59 203 28 118 44 69 64 6 2,952 843 .33 810 1,718 16 1, 203 446 772 642 129 1,215 141 107 34 168 129 34 96 69 27 919 107 17 90 860 20 233 107 146 101 26 713 82 6 76 330 4 235 91 166 139 27 664 66 Ifi 47 136 12 93 80 61 36 16 1.501 184 67 127 900 5 657 838 848 324 24 3,199 874 84 290 999 20 692 207 479 366 113 2,007 1,486 83 26 140 120 8 97 96 40 26 60 64 50 68 10 6 446 888 1.766 204 22 182 566 12 419 119 261 210 41 627 75 6 69 2ti9 17 140 112 78 70 8 2,834 2,172 202 253 1, 006 1,482 23 27 761 993 123 400 696 601 639 483 21 98 687 127 1,554 182 130 62 268 188 76 108 98 6 2,849 830 49 281 1,164 64 833 267 639 496 40 1,360 169 60 109 798 11 813 274 832 266 77 1,197 189 66 146 10 96 39 61 28 23 1,300 149 78 71 858 23 217 118 128 98 20 2,406 276 119 187 604 44 379 121 223 223 674 78 9 69 215 7 166 41 116 73 32 1.644 191 25 166 682 22 471 188 246 158 88 432 49 8 41 202 20 103 72 70 66 1 2,836 826 112 214 600 409 191 269 208 51 6,994 566 8,000 266 1,197 438 602 184 418 3,887 6,331 824 628 1,150 1, 8tiO 68 118 778 1,104 286 688 400 647 374 398 26 8,444 716 8,368 603 1,902 943 1,267 939 81 6,731 10,338 661 864 1,850 2,505 283 460 1,115 1,516 413 629 654 935 447 656 107 379 6,250 623 8,446 173 1,912 1,1H4 1,298 l,2Kl 8 5,825 487 1,278 207 9ft2 107 492 422 64 5,029 3,997 6,896 4,681 420 883 402 894 2,209 2,200 2,450 1,646 221 166 866 87 1, 21.0 767 1,624 1,086 672 840 671 822 899 1,393 1,034 649 713 1,300 946 588 186 91 91 61 5,498 459 1,862 253 1,199 410 941 862 79 118 KEPOET or THE PEOVOST MAESHAL GENEEAL. Nvm'hrrs ofrcg^sfranis, gross quota, credits, net quota, called, etc., shown by local boards in every State — Continued. MICHIGA'N— Continued. Local board. Total Gross quota. Enlist- ment credits. Net quota. Called for examina- tion. Failed to ap- pear. Accepted IX: Rejected Total claims tor exemp- tion and discharge. Claims aUowed. Claims disal- lowed. Certlfled to district boards. 21-1-14 21-1-15 21-1-16 21-1-17 21-1-18 5,812 6,652 3, 556 2,648 5,582 6,758 3,172 2,449 3,213 5,535 4,952 4,689 6,745 1,726 2,075 1,097 4,151 6,213 2,321 729 487 557 296 2e2 467 564 265 204 462 415 391 565 164 192 100 354 528 254 76 348 70 68 121 274 710 214 183 203 179 322 130 124 45 197 184 239 204 44 53 143 53 196 205 65 34 236 217 86 102 107 124 60 65 305 192 225 188 163 13 142 146 99 182 233 39 444 159 430 339 140 64 145 117 2,119 2,527 1,081 1,001 2,100 2,125 1,136 900 1,176 2,450 2,203 1,900 2,536 534 909 300 1,859 2,593 1,508 300 172 "J 33 240 206 100 74 67 271 143 252 168 14 3 4 78 350 31 9 1,462 1,841 348 629 1,351 1,578 781 448 828 1,808 1,523 1,450 1,552 416 548 190 1,043 1,506 1,117 223 461 200 312 509 341 255 378 281 371 573 198 817 100 343 88 638 737 360 65 1,006 1,120 471 493 826 1,026 531 255 545 1,321 1,120 980 1,071 223 321 115 710 986 721 160 903 752 451 359 779 956 511 230 454 1,176 899 851 1,005 194 256 75 602 889 690 119 103 327 6 134 38 59 20 25 91 146 217 46 66 29 65 40 108 67 31 38 634 1,020 514 652 21-1-20 21 1 21 Detroit No 21 260 21 1 '''' 332 21-1-23 21-1-24 21-1-25 632 16, 626 200 244 128 4,797 36 52 28 685 215 21 7 5 Eaton 113 21-3- 5 21 3- 6 511 Flint No 2 1,209 271 85 511 327 17 9 163 612 Gladwin' 107 Grand Rapids No. 1 Grand Rapids No. 2 Grand Rapids No. 3 4,091 3,917 4,020 1,496 2,643 6,319 2,006 2,810 3,121 2,735 2,774 1,767 2,543 696 2,622 1,760 4,912 i;824 1,876 2,245 1,547 518 1,879 1,810 315 6,290 1,908 811 1,665 1,759 1,243 565 813 2,811 1,831 2,546 2,134 1,578 1,331 2,044 1,380 899 275 250 292 542 1,002 2,500 1,031 1,068 812 953 1,123 817 582 150 650 569 928 896 188 244 1,173 166 770 340 102 780 1,000 376 600 800 678 270 309 1,315 600 896 800 400 79 271 682 458 11 28 22 55 147 33 119 62 104 11 37 40 3 86 26 32 . 43 11 21 21 8 34 29 43 1 40 27 23 9 8 12 52 13 74 45 105 43 e' 21 17 31 211 183 220 346 715 2,043 746 432 423 274 823 466 367 95 376 378 595 593 169 166 881 131 486 486 85 91 606 674 217 409 506 176 169 232 964 408 545 467 48 404 377 378 53 39 50 154 232 457 252 190 154 300 316 175 36 164 165 301 228 18 67 271 25 146 240 66 11 234 299 134 156 271 168 44 67 277 147 117 176 80 23 83 288 49 142 139 170 203 521 1,234 480 571 382 508 557 318 248 59 195 214 376 358 109 119 547 71 302 287 45' 303 422 110 393 311 304 105 128 634 238 519 388 186 33 221 244 197 130 108 138 174 432 1,007 395 512 349 418 445 285 218 46 145 129 349 340 75 75 460 60 229 253 187 36 228 347 94 388 305 294 88 121 539 189 456 324 154 26 147 181 165 12 31 32 29 89 227 85 69 33 52 112 33 30 13 50 85 27 28 34 44 87 11 73 34 9' 76 76 16 5 6 6 96 49 63 64 32 6 74 63 32 91 g 7 98 21-6- 8 1,438 174 324 730 234 1,234 53 50 20 20 87 21 3 8 Gratiot 314 911 Hillsdale 323 237 21 5- 9 219 999 332 205 292 81 297 205 570 212 434 10 75 168 36 100 21 331 8 274 392 21 3 10 190 163 68 21 5 11 227 21^ 12 Isabella 262 220 263 Kalamazoo No. 1 Kalamazoo No. 2 21-7- 7 494 ""go 397 35 7 95 374 21 G 12 Kalkaska 74 ■'l 6 10 Kent No 1 266 448 77 726 223 93 47 12 2 490 6 7 233 85 21 6-13 Lake 47 21 3 12 277 343 124 21-2- 1 139 21 2 2 394 145 65 329 218 186 21 5 27 24 26 159 21-3-13 176 78 21-5-16 44 21 2 5 417 201 265 21-5-15 Marquette No 2 536 183 155 237 162 104 349 276 44 720 175 123 20 142 95 16 5 167 43 5 276 16 257 21 6 16 Mason 198 23 260 21^-14 Midland 193 21-6 18 125 21-2- 4 2,366 377 6,162 1,493 4,292 3,392 1,316 588 1,453 1,215 102 1,901 501 2,360 2,331 480 178 800 406 14 10 167 28 408 262 26 3 210 15 549 101 1,183 434 1,438 1,650 348 133 409 260 112 17 556 39 514 387 106 42 181 131 281 53 743 250 1,068 1,046 201 74 336 144 189 43 657 225 957 1,024 163 47 291 103 92 10 25 111 64 38 27 39 41 369 21-4-13 59 21-6-20 526 21 6 21 211 540 21 2 7 960 153 71 204 142 191 13 7 59 25 654 21-6-22 186 21-4 15 Offpmaw 101 21-5-18 213 21-6-23 Osceola 162 APPENDIX TABLES. 119 Numbers ofregistranfs, gross quota, credits, net quota, called, etc., shown by local boards in every State — Continued. MICHIGAN— Continued. Total reids- trants. Etilist- credits. Accepted Ucjcftcd cal'ly. tion and discharge. Oscoda Otsecro Ottawa No. 1.. Ottawa No. 2.. Presqiic Islo... Roscommon. . . Saginaw No. 1 S.AOTNAW No. 2 SaL,'iiiaw , Si. (lair No. 1. St. Clair No. 2. St. Joseph...... Sanilac Schoolcraft Shiawasee Tufrnia Van Huren. Wa.shtL'naw WavncNo. 1... AVayne No. 2... Wayne No. 3... Wayne No. 4... Wexford 143 4fl9 1,028 2,277 955 167 2,644 1,969 2, 950 2,346 1,865 2, 074 2,383 772 2,622 2,333 2, 214 4,705 6, 852 2, 608 3,939 2,460 461 134 110 21 20 1 535 223 341 44 65 152 cno 922 326 90 659 566 1, 145 1,010 1,270 1,281 1,082 180 1,158 1,001 532 1,116 3,634 1,299 1,513 1,433 2,599 902 1,273 61 290 407 162 34 326 267 501 529 600 518 414 63 648 456 277 446 1,863 747 1,027 546 MINNESOTA. 22-4-14 22-2- 5 22-4-15 22-1-10 22-3- 7 22-2- 22-1-16 22-4-17 22-1-11 22-4-1 S 22-1-12 22-1-13 22-1-14 22-2- 7 22-4-19 Becker Bi'' Stone Blue Earth Carver . . . . . CaBS Clay Cottonwood . . 1 9 Dodw 1 •^ DULUTH, No. 2 3, PULUTH No 4 1 Faribault Fillmore 1, 9, Goodhue 9 Hou.ston Ilubliard 1 T. i: Jackson 1 Koochichins; Lac Old Parle 1, 1 Lake Lyon . i' M'cLeod 1 Mahnomen 432 99 486 721 450 270 446 105 643 321 396 358 423 733 170 79 484 072 8.50 421 400 835 725 1,057 504 389 510 509 324 325 918 327 243 456 1,167 478 274 440 450 510 220 375 322 343 120 EEPOKT OF THE PEOVOST MARSHAL GENERAL. Numbers of registrants, gross quota, credits, net quota, called, etc., sliown ly local boards in every State — Continued. MINNESOTA— Continued. Local board. Total regis- trants. Gross quota. Enli3^ credits. Net quota. Called for FaUed Accepted gut Rejected Total claims tor exemp- tion and discliarge. Claims aUowed. Claims disal- lowed. Certlfled to district boards. 2; 053 1,502 997 2,220 2,602 4,310 5,277 4,723 1,546 2,640 4,061 3,194 2:374 2,202 2,848 2,199 2,067 2,173 1,380 1,212 1,649 1,337 2,447 2,278 1,727 890 1,556 1,078 3,478 1,157 220 240 174 115 41 89 19 78 179 161 155 37 173 198 329 400 355 127 202 310 244 181 168 217 167 171 145 137 105 126 149 164 234 158 89 156 100 269 103 92 63 132 160 71 44 119 100 186 206 134 203 215 166 193 177 169 163 221 152 142 157 110 118 75 148 238 163 58 60 120 224 . 47 141 78 129 64 94 98 118 206 135 621 513 400 124 621 926 1,025 '440 801 1,170 1,064 602 631 1,050 884 548 552 440 360 498 298 578 625 666 339 515 327 801 347 18 19 10 00 52 93 25 40 45 77 79 18 35 67 30 22 8 36 8 3 00 35 60 32 18 13 25 40 13 314 361 316 72 462 382 657 490 754 333 595 790 720 506 472 766 622 386 382 320 266 352 269 425 408 481 242 397 264 370 249 167 113 74 42 136 145 103 266 204 77 110 314 238 63 124 217 197 133 137 84 70 142 29 118 157 153 94 105 184 71 164 199 137 51 302 218 538 135 126 95 37 241 172 359 29 31 42 14 61 43 179 203 22 1 15 Martin 239 22 *> 8 Meeker 212 46 22-2- 9 22-2-10 22-2-11 22-2-12 22-2-13 22-2-14 22-2-15 22-2-16 22-2-17 22-2-18 22-2-19 22-2-20 22-2-21 29 3 9 Minneapolis No. 1 Minneapolis No. 2 Minneapolis No. 3 Minneapolis No. 4 Minneapolis No. 5 Minneapolis No. 6 Minneapolis No. 7 Minneapolis No. 8 Minneapolis No. 9 Minneapolis No. 10 Minneapolis No. 11 Minneapolis No. 12 Minneapolis No. 13 231 237 435 473 454 218 455 468 559 339 303 551 443 220 223 212 144 210 123 236 202 224 131 212 148 285 103 385 183 367 386 512 287 504 403 156 192 105 113 207 91 217 154 107 165 117 206 59 35 86 82 47 52 48 47 40 47 31 7 31 3 32 19 113 70 24 47 31 79 23 505 150 277 278 232 246 262 4,746 240 254 161 141 193 159 283 1,675 109 24 36 67 10 119 247 213 210 222 2' 1 18 Nicollet 151 29 1 19 Nobles 165 170 216 22-3-10 29 3 11 325 Otter Tail No 2 463 102 180 128 399 135 124 72 224 254 251 127 133 71 13 24 28 130 32 32 9 92 94 180 83 14 •337 134 22 3 12 Pine 232 22 1 ''1 146 382 184 22-3-14 Red Lake 625 1,916 2,176 252 414 450 235 160 450 17 4 18 12 16 229 297 367 168 125 233 16 101 64 49 35 201 79 124 347 78 178 119 157 94 242 140 76 136 167 106 133 93 154 158 170 98 41 146 194 455 236 607 525 579 371 391 299 357 383 189 416 310 203 223 126 142 128 89 40 81 143 397 204 535 486 534 313 284 298 341 87 309 169 153 157 225 16 42 9 1 59 45 58 32 47 39 45 58 107 40 48 30 51 69 50 31 66 55 107 164 259 99 1 93 Rice 2,167 1,087 1,162 1,340 2,417 1,121 2,627 1,653 2,560 2,718 2^477 2,220 2,135 2,056 2,794 i;920 1,789 1^385 87 Rock 55 155 166 29 4-97 St Louis No 2 912 397 1,216 874 1,174 720 787 694 832 701 499 754 554 484 512 458 207 30 181 140 225 20 52 103 76 22 77 50 60 46 23 431 237 543 356 635 581 750 382 614 438 341 568 324 326 356 332 208 22-4-28 St Louis No 3 134 251 22-4-30 155 1,358 434 232 258 311 St Paul No 3 238 22-3-18 St Paul No 4 201 204 22-3-20 22 3 21 231 St Paul No 7 253 22 3 '''' St Paul No 8 231 191 22 3 24 St Paul No 10 196 22 3 25 St. P.\UL No. 11 2,727 139 92 167 858 21 17 19 149 22 1 ''5 Scott 22 2 ''3 787 1,428 2,893 1,590 1,580 839 1,195 2,129 744 1,538 830 1,281 1,840 1,155 910 2,933 2,294 1,655 275 575 652 570 238 201 , 397 748 161 384 243 531 350 400 247 450 637 551 17 5 37 11 5 7 18 20 10 18 7 4 20 21 3 23 41 193 313 499 370 200 155 247 557 110 295 169 447 211 252 200 328 447 403 64 2.57 116 189 33 36 130 171 41 70 67 80 119 110 26 119 169 102 i38 135 356 168 92 139 302 53 123 105 255 117 128 100 247 286 187 97 308 156 98 82 120 282 36 82 240 115 112 92 151 176 154 50 38 48 12 1 10 19 20 15 41 39 15 2 16 8 65 109 33 126 22 1 ''Q Sibley- 217 22 3 ''G 293 527 185 98 139 246 178 97 150 213 135 106 342 268 192 126 127 38 19 22 39 37 19 21 149 41 8 224 62 57 217 22 1 V Steele 96 22 3 ■'S 73 Swift 144 Todd 275 22 3 30 Traverse 74 22 1 29 Wabasha 229 22 4 32 Wadena 103 207 22-3 31 Wasliinfton 108 22 1 30 143 22-3-32 Wilkin 130 146 22-2-25 22-1-32 Wright YeUow Medicine 266 251 APPENDIX TABLES. Numbers of registrants, gross quota, credits, net quota, called, etc., shown by local boards MISSISSIPPI. 121 171 every State — Continued. Total regis- trants. Failed pear. Accepted Rejected Total claims for exemp- Clalms disal- lowed. Adams Alcorn Amite Attala Benton Bolivar No. 1 Bolivar No. 2 Calhoun Carroll Chickasaw Choctaw Claiborne Clarke Clay Coahoma Copiah Covington Davis"' De Soto Forrest Franklin George Greene Grenada , Hancock Harrison Hinds Holmes Issaquena Itawamba Jackson Jackson. Jasper Jefferson Jefferson Davis... Jones Kemper Lafayette Lamar Lauderdale No. 1. Lauderdale No. 2 . Lawrence Leake Lee Leflore Lincoln Lowndes Madison Marion Marshall Monroe Montgomery Neshoba Newton Noxubes Oktibbeha Panola Pearl River Perry Pike Pontotoc Prentiss Quitman Rankin Scott Sharkey Simpson Smith Stone Simflower Tallahatchie Tate Tippah 1,423 1,700 1,373 1,56G 808 2,088 3,644 1,248 1,319 1,423 946 950 1,384 1,018 2^206 1,080 2,107 1,055 1,179 2,644 2,102 2,854 547 1,135 1,922 1,280 1,276 1,064 852 2,561 1,428 1,399 1,169 2,013 1,772 787 1,180 2,100 3,577 1,709 1,836 2,150 1, 556 2,205 2,061 981 1,512 1,478 1,604 2,461 1,165 947 2,052 1,407 4,495 2,039 1,405 1,303 1,106 1,282 1,301 733 4,612 3,427 1,685 1,205 78 35 130 211 243 62 151 216 58 247 98 84 14T 108 76 61 247 (') 82 148 150 156 216 lift 110 114 107 130 61 349 374 156 133 1 Probably unorganlzsd. 1 by Toluntary enlistments. 122 Numbers of registrants, EEPORT OF THE PROVOST MARSHAL GENERAL. quota, credits, net quota, called, etc., shown hj local hoards in every State — Continued. MISSISSIPPI— Continued. Local board. Total regla- Gross quota. Enllst- credits. Xet quota. CaUed for eiamma- tlon. Failed Accepted w Total claim.s (or exemp- tion and discharge. Claims allowed. Claims disal- lowed. Certified to district boards. 23 1 31 1,223 2,178 1,508 978 2,575 2,406 2,186 1,284 978 143 253 176 115 295 21 10 10 16 122 122 243 166 173 224 204 104 95 92 125 118 400 486 832 300 346 648 385 208 365 17 76 49 11 16 67 47 5 8 292 287 563 194 292 396 354 186 251 91 116 207 95 38 185 97 17 96 233 174 403 121 80 156 183 94 181 110 39 322 76 56 48 64 70 122 76 135 81 45 14 108 119 14 59 127 23-1 32 249 23 1 33 Union 2.58 118 23 2 43 Warren 254 23-2-44 23 '^ 45 342 Washin"ton No 2 537 150 115 122 153 147 109 30 28 182 217 Waj-ne ° 106 23 1 34 Webster 129 23-2-47 1,310 1,271 1,453 1,533 505 36 393 90 208 161 47 197 23-1-36 23-2-48 23 "^-ig Yalobusha Yazoo No 1 273 313 15 11 182 212 69 90 127 145 45 71 82 64 139 Yazoo No 2 . . 349 120 143 Adair Andrew Atchison... Audrain... Barry Barton Bates Ben ton Bollinger.. Boone B uehanan . Butler Caldwell... Callu •ay- Camden. Cape Girardeau Carroll Carter Cass Cedar Chariton Christian Clark Clay Clinton Cole Cooper Crawford Dade Dallas Da\dess Dekalb .Dent Douglas Dunklin. Franklin Gasconade Gentry Greene Grundy Harrison Henry Hickorv Holt Howard Howell Iron Jackson Jasper No. 1 Jasper No. 2 Jefferson Johnson JOPLIN Kansas City No. 1. 2,028 1,181 1,199 1,700 1,867 1,235 1,671 1,042 1,058 2, 592 1,924 2, 124 996 1,744 800 2,483 1,647 440 1,640 958 1,755 1,217 930 1,725 1,183 1,847 1,666 785 1,305 1,070 3,550 2,298 1,261 2,189 1,379 1,597 1,831 534 1,095 1,204 1,237 712 3,569 1,922 4,277 2,421 1,836 4,457 2,456 726 473 284 113 215 38 522 227 103 175 170 179 1,017 233 91 204 300 I Quota filled by voluntary enlistments. APPENDIX TABLES. 123 Numljers ofregislranis, gross quota, credits, net quota, called, etc., sliown by local boards in every State — Continued. MISSOURI— Continued. Enlist- credits. Called for tion. FaUed toap- Accepted physi- cally. Kansas City No. 2. . Kansas City No. 3.. Kansas City No. 4.. • Kansas City No. 5.. Kansas City No. 6.. Kansas City No. 7.. Kansas City No. 8.. Kansas City No. 9. . Kansas City No. 10. Kansas City No. 11. Kansas City No. 12. Kansas City No. 13. Kansas City- No. 14. Kansas City No. 15. Kansas City No. 16. Knox Laclede Lafayette Lawrence I/Cwis Lincoln Linn Livingston McDonald Macon Madison Maries Marion Mercer Miller Moniteau. Monroe Montgomery. Morgan New Madrid . Newton Nodaway Oregon Osage Ozark Pemiscot Perry Pettis Phelps Platte Polk Pulaski Putnam Ralls Randolph Ray Reynolds Ripley St. Charles St. Glair St. Francois Ste. Genevieve St. Joseph No. 1 St. Joseph No. 2 St. Joseph No. 3 St. Louis No. 1 St. Louis No. 2 St. Louis No. 3 St. Louis No. 4 , St. Louis No. 5 St. Louis No. 6 St. Louis No. 7 St. Louis No. 8 St. Louis No. 9 St. Louis No. 10 St. Louis No. 11 3, 775 101 118 326 225 129 154 257 167 119 242 123 2,961 19 118 149 630 554 1,054 789 1,000 473 258 816 525 414 523 358 855 120 502 253 408 371 419 437 180 500 436 2,112 278 317 246 400 575 570 620 1,366 554 440 424 670 850 763 720 392 369 1,402 209 252 202 231 418 400 379 915 300 249 227 496 414 417 536 ' Quota filled by voluntary enlistments. 1.24 REPOET OF THE PROVOST MARSHAL GENERAL. Numbers oj registrants, gross quota, credits, net quota, called, etc., sTiown by local loards in every State — Continued. MISSOURI— Continued. Total Gross quota. Net quota. CaUed for Failed Accepted Rejected claims tor Claims allowed. Claims Certified Local board. reels- trants. mpnt credits. •'X^^- to ap- pear. ^X: ?xr tlon'^d lowed. boards. discharge. 14-1-15 24-1-lG 2,800 4.270 158 237 666 1,200 25 55 453 824 188 318 337 594 278 540 59 54 189 St. Loots No. 13 285 24-1-17 24-1-18 24-J-19 2,584 2,317 2, 294 146 136 129 693 655 858 8 16 23 373 398 257 293 204 78 261 238 150 231 154 119 15 84 31 191 248 133 24-1-20 C!t I rirtra Mn 17 3, G93 1,920 201 577 46 441 90 213 152 61 108 536 1 336 200 203 149 47 164 24 1 ■'■2 St I>(nris No. 19 2, 3.^.6 145 670 39 370 161 214 193 21 177 St. Louis No. 20 2. 298 130 456 24 310 98 204 143 64 189 24-1 -L>4 .St. Loots No. 21 2, 888 164 793 13 535 214 332 292 40 221 24-1-25 2, 388 140 480 30 292 158 172 91 81 204 24-l-2fi 24-1 27 St I ours No 23 2, 804 3,936 158 250 616 1,575 14 82 454 893 143 409 292 780 183 766 109 10 249 St Lours No 24 350 24-1-2S St. Lq-uis No. 25 2. 891 163 853 93 523 237 328 269 267 24-1-29 2, 181 127 705 41 434 213 289 278 11 151 24-1-30 St. Lours No. 27 4,392 249 1,301 99 833 369 588 558 30 316 24_J-31 St. Louis No. 28 3,122 9,037 4,660 175 1,001 37 371 325 250 198 52 206 24-1- 1 St. Louis No. 1 2,491 133 676 31 477 168 342 255 87 220 24-1- 2 St. Louis No. 2 2,722 136 779 65 526 188 328 248 80 269 24-1- 3 St. Louis No. 3 2,012 910 505 136 673 34 504 135 365 300 56 195 24-t--}r, Salinp 2,374 278 44 234 768 42 574 152 356 310 46 27G 24-2-17 S'-ii'i-!er 577 68 24 44 226 156 70 107 97 10 59 21-2-1 S S-..!hlI).l 836 98 10 88 397 9 235 152 151 135 14 104 24-3 22 2,113 246 144 102 654 42 266 346 177 124 53 145 24 3 "i Sh-Hiir-.n 871 1,018 102 126 12 25 90 101 402 444 12 10 319 317 71 119 224 215 17 201 207 11 301 24-2-19 Sholbv 24-5-34 Sprin-giteld 3,454 428 261 167 744 13 568 162 424 365 58 204 24-3-24 StAwidard 2,509 291 148 143 711 60 589 66 446 303 134 298 953 1,415 695 1, 357 1,705 747 1,030 1,145 111 223 81 157 198 87 120 132 11 53 9 56 186 5 21 36 100 170 72 101 62 82 99 96 525 294 440 284 334 383 400 8 7 8 20 22 6 15 15 373 491 224 335 195 184 324 273 144 179 70 85 67 144 44 112 258 348 169 224 144 79 265 175 230 230 137 182 95 50 101 152 28 118 24 42 49 29 105 23 143 252 04 5 3(5 Taney 99 04 5 37 Texas 187 109 94 9 90 V'lrrcn 128 94 •? 95 164 24-3 -2fi AW-ne 118 1,283 ,525 1,173 150 61 186 28 37 91 33 99 116 500 7 3 22 275 77 361 117 36 117 191 267 120 235 71 18 32 155 24 4-4,8 Worth 47 24-5-40 1,266 Blainp 527 8,677 Carter 837 6,063 Custer 2 756 3 747 Doer Udge 2,604 772 Fallon Fers^ua Flathoad 4, 9.55 2 218 Gallatin 1,909 Hill ; Jefferson 3,629 649 2,418 Meagher 522 400 MnsselsheU 1,942 Missoula 2,884 Park Phillips Powell 1, 755 2, 432 813 Prairie 738 175 2,200 1,245 440 1,262 1,501 501 430 215 950 242 425 447 271 76 210 441 824 483 5 1,067 34 13 457 79 11 34 126 2,408 473 143 1,461 742 736 54 1,117 324 30(! lot; 679 154 314 APPENDIX TABLES. 125 Numbers of registrants, gross quola, credits, net quota, called, etc., shown by local boards in every Sfafe— Continued. MONTANA— Continued. Local board. Total regis- trants. Gross qaota. Bnlist- credits. Net quota. CaUed for FaUed to ap- pear. Accepted w Total claims tor exemp- tion and discharge. Claims allowed. Claims disal- lowed. Certified to district tion. boards. Ravalli 955 1,766 '704 3,740 3,380 1,047 754 2,674 1,000 3,044 804 401 3,739 110 194 219 85 400 396 122 88 299 114 339 90 46 439 50 42 50 16 27 35 21 21 105 30 60 12 11 155 60 152 169 69 373 361 101 67 194 84 279 78 35 284 250 704 450 204 1,057 1,800 400 138 764 250 757 ■247 111 1,068 2, 24 25 34 76 297 14 ,s 50 41 30 12 99 182 394 352 147 700 1,160 243 92 398 176 573 181 78 709 42 270 21 102 243 131 45 224 34 122 36 19 193 112 183 160 67 349 726 136 32 241 82 244 91 43 410 102 137 125 €3 214 652 122 10 206 50 164 77 39 10 38 35 4 110 74 14 22 35 29 80 14 4 30 84 25 2 10 Richland 25 1 22 Rosebud 225 90 25 1 24 Silver Bow 508 132 252 25 2 13 Toole 125 25 2-14 Valley 395 110 25-1 27 Wibaux 41 25-2-16 376 NEBRASKA. Adamg 1,925 Arthui' 109 159 Boone 1,251 800 Boyd 624 Brown 520 Buffalo 2,059 1,227 Butler . . 1,367 1,701 Casa Cedar 1,494 Chase Cherry 1,274 Clay :'■■::::: Coli'ax 1,042 1,374 2,305 Dakota 663 831 1, 455 Deuhel 346 1,059 2,214 Douglas 1, 941 429 Dundy 1,258 Frontier 830 932 2,443 484 Garden" Garfield 270 422 Grant 186 Greeley 784 Hall 2,206 1,239 Harlan 324 493 Holt 1,416 Hooker . 147 Howard 960 1,403 Kearney 837 Keith 338 Kimball 362 Knox 1.760 > Quota &U*d bT Tolimtar7 126 KEPORT OF THE PKOVOST MARSHAL GENERAL. Numbers of registrants, gross quota, credits, net quota, called, etc., shown hy local boards in every State — Continued. NEBRASKA— Continued. Local board. Total rcsis- trants. Gross quota. Enlist. cr"dUs. Net quota. Called for examina- tiOD. Failed to ap- pear. cally. Rejected Total claims for exemp- tion aid lischarge. Claims allowed. lowed. boards. oe^^i 2,984 520 100 220 116 171 115 18 20 9 80 68 96 61 22 76 199 215 252 287 231 62 24 18 92 100 121 104 80 47 34 108 70 176 156 133 77 60 48 86 97 13 11 44 882 89 23 129 551 15 370 104 273 237 36 186 26-2-22 26-2-23 26-1-34 26-1 35 1,818 1,753 191 169 137 1,949 876 955 816 1,033 1, 098 3,147 3,408 3, 988 4,552 3,060 1,617 809 311 936 991 1, 851 1,000 979 1,656 344 1,445 811 1, 942 1,786 1,397 921 793 558 202 22 20 16 227 102 112 95 120 131 371 87 4 147 34 16 34 98 55 372 500 70 65 48 380 188 444 195 54 364 804 856 701 850 700 144 120 65 350 300 392 308 264 200 139 372 200 552 813 572 304 200 4 281 66 204 185 19 111 3 '""33' 11 49 4 8 17 56 110 159 36 22 1 i 3 10 33 1 14 16 3' 5 18 3 14 49 46 33 268 155 241 162 41 248 536 600 404 695 547 132 78 48 285 232 283 244 231 107 323 161 400 395 414 199 162 18 19 7 72 22 45 29 5 94 212 146 138 118 113 7 42 9 60 58 76 63 33 27 27 46 23 121 171 155 81 32 48 21 23 170 88 147 88 27 160 425 367 265 413 346 75 48 37 219 139 199 111 148 105 158 95 212 455 242 102 100 43 15 13 155 58 93 64 19 145 338 130 343 263 51 35 28 138 64 151 98 138 54 48 102 69 196 341 167 102 SO 5 6 10 15 30 54 24 8 13 73 27 135 70 83 24 13 3 20 75 48 13 10 61 12 56 26 16 "A "26" 20 26-1-36 l^onT 30 20 26-1-37 Madison 120 102 141 90 1^1 98 26 2 24 Nfiivilii 28 114 26-l-i2 26-1^3 26-1-44 26-1-45 26 1 46 Om'vhv No 1 239 255 Omaha No. 3 Om\ha No 4 324 351 2,218 188 94 37 109 116 216 117 1J6 193 40 172 94 226 210 104 108 93 50 91 144 20 110 99 128 118 111 24 187 1,034 136 70 19 17 16 95 13 36 „c 64 24 50 54 31 31 33 2 5 47 7 99 56 46 29 43 1 58 289 26 '' '6 Otoe 85 36 26 "^ 28 Perkins 21 26 ' '■'9 Phelps 148 170 146 ''G 2 30 Polk J 37 26 "^ 31 Red Willow 95 86 60 26 2-33 Saline 217 95 Saunders 217 207 20 2 35 Seward 250 0(3 1 53 134 84 26-1-55 26-1 56 779 1,218 167 920 849 1,099 1,014 942 204 1,694 211 295 52 59 130 220 253 250 80 439 4 7 1 3 6 14 3 4 5 26 181 229 40 46 104 179 193 190 01 323 69 11 7 20 27 36 56 14 90 86 117 28 34 68 91 105 104 36 195 71 116 8 66 71 66 35 1 *" 15 1 20 8 9 20 39 6 1 52 109 112 30 26 1 57 Thurston 22 9g 1 59 Valley 57 26 1 60 103 132 26 2-37 Webster 89 26 l-C Wheeler York 173 476 237 1,629 376 207 1,176 283 366 751 347 872 141 156 2; 124 66 94 23 191 51 20 138 39 44 81 37 105 21 23 293 207 27 26 4 40 12 4 42 25 10 14 80 5 1 80 69 S9 68 19 161 89 16 96 14 41 71 23 76 16 22 213 148 204 311 118 705 178 80 442 78 185 349 139 811 119 100 1,250 904 31 48 17 80 19 6 68 12 63 22 211 4 9 420 186 107 162 44 388 126 226 36 75 184 47 146 62 69 547 366 47 56 27 142 33 12 116 16 24 97 13 102 53 18 283 91 80 130 55 267 84 42 141 29 124 54 75 40 44 382 497 74 60 38 225 69 36 108 60 46 51 38 42 306 445 6 29 17 42 15 6 33 8 9 20 8 15 2 76 52 55 97 1 2 Clark 92 37 257 68 27 1 6 Eureka 26 27 1 7 Humboldt 138 29 27 1 9 Lincoln 44 27 1 10 103 Mneral 40 Nye 106 23 27 1 14 Storey . . . 31 27 1 15 Washoe 241 229 APPENDIX TABLES. 127 Numbers of registrants, gross quota, credits, net quota, called, etc., shown by local boards in every State — Ckjntinued. NEW HAMPSHIKE. Local board. Total regis- trants. Gross quota. Enlist- ment credits. Net quota. Called for examina- tion. Failed Accepted Rejected Total claims for t"™Sd discharge. S^.. Claims disal- alowed. Certified to district boards. 28-1- 1 1,643 1,150 2,276 3,248 3,148 3,112 2,044 2, 8G4 3,633 1,911 1,593 2,228 2.053 1, 775 3,055 1,874 193 153 264 375 364 169 57 260 187 234 24 96 4 188 130 79 52 62 79 41 55 78 75 65 130 46 97 500 ,i 710 351 300 400 810 260 410 308 553 320 663 276 9 63 3 115 93 5 5 50 92 21 33 26 42 28 4 69 295 14 459 148 183 153 162 97 175 203 228 169 268 101 16 201 12 174 145 70 90 218 83 164 79 210 111 216 78 37 146 8 276 344 203 131 198 423 111 219 136 245 114 230 125 28 100 7 190 230 182 100 171 403 101 131 90 179 101 187 112 9 46 1 14 21 30 18 20 10 11 46 23 10 43 13 48 154 6 275 237 93 Carroll 28-1- 3 Cheshire 28-1 4 Coos 28-1- 5 28-1- 6 HillsboroTigh No. 1 Hills boroush No. 2 Manchester No. 1 i'UxcHESTER No. 2 M.\NrHESTER No. 3 28-1- 7 28-1- 8 598 467 85 28-1- 9 95 2S-1-10 28-1 11 978 796 57 91 28 1 12 Merrimack No. 2 443 310 28-1-13 Rockinffham No. 1 Rockingham No. 2 Strafford 106 28-1-14 28-1 15 468 357 218 328 227 172 80 161 Atlantic City No. 1 Atlantic City No. 2 Atlantic Bayonne No. 1 Bayonne No. 2 Bergen No. 1 Bergen No. 2 Bergen No. 3 Bergen No. 4 Bergen No. 5 Bergen No. 6 BurliTigton No. 1 Bm-lington No. 2 Burlington No. 3 Camden No. 1 Camden No. 2 Ca-Mden No. 3 Camden No. 4 Cam.leuNo. 1 , Camden No. 2 , Cape May , Cumberland No. 1... Cumberland No. 2... East Orange Elizabeth No. 1 Elizabeth No. 2 Elizabeth No. 3 Essex No. 1 Essex No. 2 Essex No. 3 Essex No. 4 Essex No. 5 Gloucester No. 1 Gloucester No. 2 HOBOKEN No. 1 HOBOKEN No. 2 HobokenNo. 3 Hudson No. 1 Hudson No. 2 Hudson No. 3 Hudson No. 4 Hudson No. 5 Hunterdon Jersey City No. 1. . . Jersey City No. 2. . . Jersey City No. 3. . . Jersey City No. 4. . . Jersey CriY No. 5. . . Jersey City No. 6... Jersey City No. 7. . . Jersey City No. 8... Jersey City No. 9... Jersey City No. 10.. 2,362 2.889 2,193 5,445 3,411 3.634 2,662 3,546 2,423 2,420 1, 351 1,638 2,311 2,337 3,128 2,890 3,866 1,427 1,970 2,947 1,641 2,159 2,589 3,586 3,687 3,350 2,783 1,539 1,950 2.284 2,505 2,876 3, 257 937 3,260 3,162 1,653 3,758 2,569 4,163 3,663 2,681 2,356 4,311 2,577 1,163 3,944 3,624 2,6/9 2,934 2,824 2,831 2,030 275 1,616 1, 873 "'76i' 1,317 447 474 1,200 2,318 1,404 1,501 1,040 1,057 798 1,158 1, 346 602 650 820 700 520 851 480 500 960 119 1,073 1,520 1,188 1,533 1.575 1,200 749 1,495 864 744 831 300 935 636 1,033 1,769 1,391 1,081 819 749 1,033 1,044 540 427 449 614 562 452 455 442 524 309 533 278 352 608 70 553 733 154 258 290 412 1,019 419 541 604 250 740 499 562 772 787 737 594 345 407 528 444 437 316 281 352 280 199 128 EEPOET OF THE PEOVOST MAESHAL GEISTEEAL. Numbers of registrants, gross quota, credits, net quota, called, eic, shown ly local loards in every State — Continued. NEW JERSEY— Continued. Total recis- trahts. Failed to ap- pear. ^. Rejectee Total claims for exemp- 29-3-21 29-3-22 29-3-23 29-3-24 29-3-25 29-3-26 29-3-27 29-3-28 29-3-29 29-2-10 29-2-11 29-2-12 29-2-13 29-2-14 29-2-15 29-2-16 29-2-17 29-2-18 29-2-19 29-2-20 29-2-21 29-2-22 29-2-23 29-2-24 29-2-25 29-2-26 29-3-30 29-2-27 29-1-25 29-1-26 29-1-27 29-1-28 29-1-29 29-1-33 29-1-34 29-1-35 29-1-36 29-3-31 29-3-32 29-2-30 29-2-31 29-2-32 29-3-33 29-3-34 29-3-35 29-3-36 29-2-33 29-2-34 29-2-35 29-2-36 29-2-37 Mercer Middlesex No. 1.. Middlesex No. 2.. Middlesex No. 3.. Middlesex No. 4.. Monmouth No. 1. Monmouth No. 2. Monmouth No. 3. Monmouth No. 4. Morris No. 1 Morris No. 2 Morris No. 3 Newark No. 1... Newark No. 2... Newark No. 3... Newark No. 4... Newark No. 5... Newark No. 6... Newark No. 7... Newark No. 8... Newark No. 9... Newark No. 10.. Newark No. 11.. Newark No. 12.. Newark No. 13.. Newark No. 14. Ocean Orange Passaic No. 1. .. Passaic No. 2. .. Passaic No. 1 Passaic No. 2 Paterson No. 1. Paterson No. 2. Paterson No. 3. Paterson No. 4. Paterson No. 5. Perth Ambot... Salem Somerset No. 1 . . Somerset No. 2. . Trenton No. 1.. Trenton No. 2.. Trenton No. 3.. Trenton No. 4.. Union No. 1 Union No. 2 Union No. 3 Warren No. 1 Warren No. 2 West Hoboken. 3,253 4, 157 3,369 2,845 3,491 2,211 1,818 2,095 2,573 3,902 1,779 3, 153 4, 359 4,295 3,251 2,734 1,.843 3,5S2 2,496 3,271 2, 444 1,846 2,914 1,720 2,879 4,316 3,082 3,364 2,979 2,827 3, 253 1,295 2,228 3,075 5,772 5,658 2,785 1,605 2,429 2,768 3,143 3,412 2,910 2,854 2,941 2,593 1,897 2,359 3,941 5, 126 200 334 "857' "742' 1,480 1, 424 1,074 2,700 1,802 1, 995 2,864 750 564 714 1,701 1,579 1,093 900 1,080 1^648 827 520 1,164 1,150 848 775 1,000 726 1,600 2,300 743 100 1,460 785 1,018 1,393 769 740 450 450 785 3,718 3,425 1,016 820 1,749 928 1,754 1,127 1,424 1,161 925 1,260 1,271 1,034 1,880 716 1, 451 1,034 736 1,286 512 516 1,196 276 754 1,242 375 219 477 1,095 201 783 569 688 175 1,279 917 504 355 546 537 643 352 1,085 856 508 77 544 550 558 903 417 329 241 229 427 634 1,870 372 794 703 405 408 433 1,111 716 321 214 494 5S6 431 381 433 349 843 1,181 320 47 886 376 429 709 425 383 160 248 426 2,200 1,245 505 364 840 416 295 703 626 337 399 381 889 653 298 188 407 480 348 349 416 311 765 1, 122 298 41 726 284 361 360 115 219 377 2,037 942 432 •343 768 372 951 576 NEW MEXICO. 30-1- 30-2- ..■',0-1- 30-2- SO-2- 30-2- 30-2- 30-1- 30-2- 30-2- 30-1- 30-1- 20-2- 30-2- 30-1- 30-2- Bernalillo. . Chaves Colfax Curry Dona Ana. . Kddv Grant Guadalupe. Lincoln . . . . Luna McKinley.. Mora Otero Quay Rio Arriba. Roosevelt. . 2,338 1,835 2, 542 972 1,236 1,144 4,186 1,101 940 "996' 1,070 847 1,093 1, 357 584 190 24 63 (•) 218 74 93 (') 1 132 533 50 228 32 501 55 179 609 33 22 100 I Quota filled by Toluntary enlistments. 222 I 216 105 I 85 169 1 147 119 1 75 41 i 37 APPENDIX TABLES. 129 Numbers of registrants, gross qiiota, credits, net quota, called, etc., shown hy local boards in every State — Continued. NEW MEXICO— Continued. Local board. Total regis- trants. Gross quote. Enlist- ment credits. Net quota. Called for " tioD. Failed to ap- pear. -Accepted 'B' Total ckiims for exemp- tion and discharge. Claims allowed. Claims Certified to district boards. 30-1- 7 30-1- S 30-1- 9 30-1-10 30-2-11 30 2 12 Sanrlnval San Juan San Mii^ucl Panta Fo Socorro 470 407 1,927 1,127 400 1,857 796 996 1,820 998 80 73 284 182 57 188 123 96 173 137 9 7 71 135 16 24 34 27 65 27 71 66 213' 47 41 164 89 69 108 no .- 306 255 663 194 118 796 402 368 440 1 1 61 13 19 155 62 15 32 71 157 186 392 133 72 359 601 ' 2(;o 293 297 147 51 184 48 27 216 105 140 43 72 104 118 272 86 44 231 317 239 222 83 74 94 188 51 20 142 294 39 200 122 29 24 84 30 24 89 23 48 15 169 75 84 623 77 54 245 48 122 117 170 30-1-11 Torrance 30-1-13 Union 30 1 14 Valencia Albamy No. 1 Albany No. 2 Alb.any No. 3 Albany No. 4 AUiany No. 1 AIb. I Ut.ca Xo. 2 Utica No. 3 Z14 274 140 178 180 180 133 101 94 183 177 184 121 98 80 75 105 193 233 103 181 144 162 237 239 31-3-28 261 31-3-29 1,225 291 687 158 242 Warron 160 31-1-17 Washinsrton No. 1 168 31-1-18 31-3-31 Washington No. 2 Watertown 395 200 138 268 31-7-16 Wayne No 1 431 31-7-17 Wayne No 2 459 98 250 31-4-19 Westchester No. 1 Westchester No. 2 233 31-4-20 163 31-4-21 Westchester No. 3 Westchester No. 4 Westchester No. 5 Westchester No. 6 131 31-4-22 31-4-23 120 150 31-4-24 31-8 26 1,656 285 141 984 52 38 351 467 31-6-15 Yates 135 31-4-25 203 31-4-26 180 31-4-27 1,042 555 200 I Quota fii ed by vol mtary enli tments. 134 EEPOKT OF THE PROVOST MABSHAL GENEEAL. Numbers of registrants, gross quota, credits, net quota, called, etc., sTiown by local boards in every State — Continued. NORTH CAROLINA. Local board Total Gross uota. Enlist- ment credits. Net quota. Called for tlon. Failed Accepted Rejected IX: Total claims for exemp- tion and discharge. Claims allowed. Claims disal- lowed. Certified to dislrlct boards. 32-1- 1 2,487 800 472 2,108 1,478 793 2,556 i;476 1,120 2,G61 2,497 i;723 3, 065 339 473 1,132 1,007 2, 359 4,517 1,812 1,075 907 318 2,391 2,415 2,454 2,587 070 345 2,647 956 2,528 3,903 3,018 2,144 2,064 3,836 784 423 1,964 1,271 1,499 3,395 1,763 3 553 296 93 54 246 173 92 299 173 129 133 13 9 SO 13 21 51 31 15 26 163 80 45 216 160 71 248 171 158 103 166 171 120 207 135 46 103 109 103 198 191 37 58 28 183 235 204 221 36 156 87 247 267 300 231 145 212 80 25 166 122 76 171 331 176 19 21 126 71 75 144 103 152 197 84 93 100 94 162 145 187 74 100 153 395 122 139 660 361 199 932 620 375 750 491 634 363 662 900 424 895 574 116 607 374 602 1,150 932 173 212 169 670 510 440 344 264 900 502 740 1,365 600 1,066 450 1,237 275 358 526 290 284 681 500 1,262 800 159 55 455 244 300 625 19 1 2 67 10 14 43 35 41 18 55 89 37 8 1 11 16 17 61 ""'ii' 15 15 58 73 11 ■■■■53' 9 38 105 73 64 13 106 6 13 6 8 4 41 18 115 51 4 2 25 15 10 6 437 244 155 685 391 284 647 107 353 208 438 490 292 679 418 67 459 251 366 853 605 124 127 105 498 435 343 364 219 203 612 315 464 806 399 ■ 705 374 781 218 117 373 203 195 455 420 105 - 35 284 159 . 244 455 204 116 40 151 219 77 149 240 132 169 281 116 139 148 48 138 111 208 236 329 49 74 64 141 205 109 77 114 61 288 168 208 402 128 297 351 47 28 144 79 72 183 186 281 329 41 18 146 70 46 138 277 189 112 542 275 254 536 201 231 124 839 346 197 522 339 38 354 139 265 640 350 104 77 76 344 375 252 28 133 162 247 321 276 534 279 544 159 93 246 136 122 299 202 564 386 82 22 177 106 182 316 143 137 100 192 164 363 142 180 215 276 149 356 260 20 298 112 205 522 280 76 58 70 276 201 120 22 118 131 178 185 513 137 176 610 117 68 192 69 94 238 178 473 266 76 9 117 75 159 212 134 52 12 176 83 33 173 - 51 86 124 70 48 166 59 10 65 27 60 18 70 66 19 6 92 132 6 15 31 69 136 86 139 165 103 34 42 24 54 67 28 61 24 91 120 6 13 60 31 23 104 221 108 48 32 1 4 349 Ashe 199 96 32 2 1 Beaufort 284 32-2- 2 164 173 32-2- 4 Brunswick . . . . 163 206 596 200 361 186 55 132 118 276 530 211 125 105 37 281 281 308 78 42 310 114 293 450 353 252 242 453 91 47 227 148 259 80 154 51 9 29 9 173 832 20 47 9 98 46 85 87 13 6 154 27 46 183 53 21 97 241 11 22 61 26 219 143 32 1 9 358 Caldwell 160 48 32 2- 6 Carteret 174 3'' 1 11 Caswell 139 172 298 32 2 7 Chatham . . . 247 39 X 14 49 70 32 1 15 Clay 37 32 1 16 Cleveland 221 32 2 9 247 233 32 2 11 262 32 2 12 Currituck 95 32-1 17 244 32-1 18 Davie 137 32 2 14 Duplin 302 330 32 2 16 277 32 1 19 Forsyth 341 Franklin 316' 266 32-2 18 Gates 104 82 1 21 64 232 137 32 1 22 Guilford No. 1 108 32-1-23 211 776 417 241 245 150 140 100 83 318 126 439 86 65 226 129 14 29 174 23 119 32-2-21 Halifax.. 351 32 2 22 Harnett 2.077 2,118 1,290 1,211 858 711 2,668 217 32-1-25 27 25 32-2-23 Hertford 165 32 2 56 Hoke 85 32-2-24 Hyde 89 32-1-27 Iredell 243 32 2 25 1,723 2,141 G57 963 727 755 243 375 19 23 12 12 493 225 191 198 215 277 40 152 376 472 126 176 1.50 211 131 226 153 27 32 329 447 77 108 283 147 148 115 195 173 254 94 132 172 434 51 216 140 176 98 24 74 54 48 21 33 28 67 20 32 19 52 11 18 37 225 32-2-27 Jones . 95 32-2 28 Lee 111 32-1 29 1,262 1,271 978 1,658 1,487 2,196 805 1,127 1,404 3,750 441 1,871 1,189 1,500 425 403 599 834 415 966 500 502 607 801 9 16 26 22 5 25 1 26 17 66 310 267 356 552 343 654 294 430 397 549 96 105 216 260 67 268 205 46 185 117 213 188 237 242 543 284 320 244 391 129 1.55 198 267 157 432 218 245 211 160 84 33 39 23 85 64 65 75 30 231 183 32-1-32 McDowell 122 32-1 30 180 32-1-31 193 32-2-30 Martin 180 32-1-33 32-1-34 Mecklenburg Mitchell 216 14S 32-1-35 176 190 32-2-32 Nash. 400 32-2-34 710 375 600 14 32 10 510 225 370 182 116 220 273 174 247 207 79 ISl 6 95 66 2'"l" 32-2-35 Onslow 147 32-1-36 Orange 189 ' Quota filled by voluntarj enlistments. APPENDIX TABLES. 135 Numbers of registrants, gross quota, credits, net quota, called, etc., sTiown by local boards in every State— Contmued. NORTH CAROLINA— Continued. Accepted Rejected Total claims tor Claims disal- lowed. Pamlico Pasquotank. Pender Perquimans. Pitt Polk Randolph Richmond No. 1.. No. 2... Rockingham Rowan Rutherford Sampson Scotland Stanley Stokes Surry Swain Transylvania. ... TyiTell Union Vance Wake No. 1 Wake No. 2 Warren Washington Watauga Wayne WUkea Wilmington Wilson Winston-Salem. Yadkin Yancey 729 1,401 1,367 3,620 620 1,9S9 2,987 3,501 2,114 2,722 1,446 1,544 2,215 994 852 467 2,714 1,800 3,464 2,667 1,682 961 3,510 2,231 2,715 3,077 5, 145 985 1,121 610 500 586 1,302 550 993 471 400 400 279 1,300 341 800 563 464 179 626 1,043 1,513 75 824 1,425 770 700 NORTH DAKOTA. Adams Barnes Benson Billings Bottineau Bowman Burke Burleigh Cass Cavalier , Dickey Divide Dunn Eddy Emmons Foster , Golden Valley Grand Forks . . Grant Griggs Hettinger , Kidder Lamoure Logan McHenry Mcintosh McKenzie McLean Mercer Morton Mountrail Nelson Oliver 158 444 314 149 532 250 305 400 1,442 404 302 235 276 150 348 153 63 805 300 220 150 240 480 201 462 316 383 495 396 661 738 136 REPORT OF THE PROVOST MARSHAL GENERAL. Numbers of registrants, gross quota, credits, net quota, called, etc., sTiown hy local boards in every State — Continued. NORTH DAKOTA— Continued. Pembina. Pierce . . . Ramsey. . Ransom.. Renville . Richland Rolette . . Sargent.. Sheridan. Sioux Slope . . . . Stark Steele... Stutsman Towner. . Traill.... Walsh . . . Ward Wells . . . . Williams. Total regis- trants. 65 37 80 36 85 163 92 84 137 218 Accepted pbj-si- cally. Eejectea physi- cally. Total claims for exomp- Adams Akron No. 1 Akron No. 2 Akron No. 3 Akron No. 4 Akron No. 5 Allen Ashland Ashtabula No. 1 Ashtabula No. 2.... Athens Auglaize Belmont No. 1 BelmdntNo. 2 Belmont No. 3 Brown Butler Canton No. 1 Canton No. 2 Carroll Champaign Cincinnati No. 1.. Cincinnati No. 2.. Cincinnati No. 3.. Cincinnati No. 4.. Cincinnati No. 5.. Cincinnati No. 6.. Cincinnati No. 7.. Cincinnati No. 8.. Cinci.nn.^ti No. 9.. Cincinnati No. 10. Clark Clermont Cleveland No. 1.. Cleveljind No. 2.. Cleveland No. 3.. Cleveland No. 4.. Cleveland No. 5.. Cleveland No. 6.. Cleveland No. 7.. Clevel.^nd No. 8. . Cleveland No. 9. . Cleveland No. 10. Cleveland No. 11. Cleveland No. 12. Cleveland No. 13. Clevel.\nd No. 14. 1,519 3,775 233 235 1,412 142 1,034 253 172 (•) 477 607 501 449 707 519 1,240 590 532 632 1,130 1,100 950 450 1,753 4,000 4,322 542 500 1,050 720 1,014 1,102 730 1,851 1,131 900 1,036 1,084 755 1,956 1,800 3,002 1,599 3,137 4,000 2,841 2,700 4,510 1,777 1,890 2,602 2,779 3,300 432 845 821 708 302 1,244 2,096 2,112 379 550 1,215 1,206 1,544 1, 104- 2,555 1,760 1,794 1,294 1,235 1,278 1,385 1,598 1,577 1,731 . 235 230 255 603 545 517 199 819 2,018 2,552 1,046 1,612 988 1,743 1,638 1, 187 1,069 2,407 863 1,019 1,561 1,728 1,600 149 442 440 360 159 609 1, 959 2,438 248 248 487 201 334 369 263 360 334 291 293 411 402 307 1,524 972 1,569 1,570 1,132 767 2,275 798 943 1,464 1,506 1,415 1 Quota filled by voluntary enlistments. APPENDIX TABLES. 137 Numbers of registrants, gross quota, credits, net quota, called, etc., sTiown hj local hoards in every State— Continued. OHIO— Continued. Accepted physi- cally. Rciectet pfeysi- Total claims for c.\cmp- Claims disal- lowed. Cleveland No. 15 Cleveland No. 16 Cleveland No. 17 Cleveland No. IS Clinton Columbiana No. 1.. Columbiana Nc. 2. . COLU-MBUS No. 1... Columbus No. 2... Columbus No. 3... Columbus No. 4... Coshocton Crawford Cuyahoga No. 1 Cuyahoga No. 2. .. Darke Dayton No. 1 Dayton No. 2 Dayton No. .3 Defiance Delatrare Erie Fairlicld Favettc FranlvUn Fulton Gallia Geagua Greene Guernsey Hamilton Hamilton No. 1 Hamilton No. 2 Hancock Hardin Harrison Heurv Highland Hocking , Holmes .^ Huron ' Jackson , Jefferson No. 1 Jefferson No. 2 Knox Lake Lawrence , Licking Lr-M.\ Logan .' , JjORAlN Lorain Lucas Madison ilahoning , Marion , Medina , Meigs , Mercer , Miami , Monroe Montgomery Morgan Morrow Muskingum , Newark Noble Ottawa , Paulding Perry , Pickaway Pike Portage 4,714 4, !)3.5 5, 287 4,39S 2, 801 5, 528 4,7iy 5, 852 5,003 2,154 3,006 5,322 6,129 3,110 4, 948 5,727 4.047 1,982 2,102 3,380 2,716 1,580 3, 825 1,745 1,379 1,020 2.232 3; 509 3,431 3, 443 4,557 2,790 2,161 1,211 1,937 1,864 1,713 1,254 2,440 1,793 4,067 3,765 2,151 2,232 2,875 2,003 4,109 2,132 4,181 4,800 2,571 1,479 6,654 3,701 1,925 1,833 2,026 3,578 1,456 3,639 983 1,163 1,953 2,528 1,276 L425 2,580 1, 765 12, 555 203 ""864 2,713 257 366 i,"i23 386 1,686 238 221 403 341 191 308 208 166 123 308 422 1,966 3, 351 2,110 1,046 1,758 1, 495 848 1,583 1,063 410 1,650 900 1,096 1,200 790 1,205 1,798 2,400 1,234 1,360 2,000 2,050 344 155 1,799 40 400 1,465 1,105 "'739' 1,116 1,501 1,890 1,330 1,357 1,150 301 509 750 124 142 526 739 '2,853 2,409 277 231 972 632 1,132 748 1,950 1,499 1,125 77 4,000 450 876 507 2,957 61 72 131 25 43 14 10 24 3 4 5 11 42 "237' 183 2 27 69 1 94 18 308 73 55 1 1,200 37 42 2 42 1 41 1,205 1,126 240 104 1,113 32 273 1,004 765 "'■467' 669 1,057 1,299 927 815 1,295 1,104 196 164 652 452 810 501 1,333 1,047 732 67 1,394 318 638 323 672 614 386 1,780 482 597 601 372 575 392 327 1,063 1,111 660 563 884 855 195 94 901 24 203 698 636 "'324' 390 1,366 101 131 440 275 573 357 811 717 509 45 2,099 249 450 202 369 491 211 1,138 28 221 382 355 267 133 76 231 65 176 308 290 956 1,040 505 395 787 805 153 85 670 162 657 515 '194 372 734 742 514 412 547 139 205 329 57 70 155 311 i,'580' 1,289 147 112 378 248 515 125 603 470 36 1,975 230 442 193 200 430 175 1,071 23 178 179 324 216 106 67 156 53 112 1 Quota filled by Toluntary enlistments. 138 EEPOET OF THE PROVOST MARSHAL GENERAL. Numhers of registrants, gross quota, credits, net quota, called, etc., sJiown by local boards in every State — Continued. OHIO— Continued. Total regis- trants. Eallst- credits. Called tor examina- tion. Failed pear. Accepted Kejected physi- cally. Total claims for tion and discharge. Preble. .. Putnam.. Richland. Sandusky Scioto Seneca Shelby Springfield Stark No. 1 Stark No. 2 Sumruitt Toledo No. 1. . .. Toledo No. 2 Toledo No. 3 Toledo No. 4 Toledo No. 5. . . . Toledo No. 6. . . . Trumbull No. 1... Trumbull No. 2... Tuscarawa.^ No. 1 . Tuf5carawas No. 2. Union Van Wert Vinton Warren Washington Wayne Williams Wood Wyandot. YOUNQSTOWN No. 1. YOUNGSTOWN No. 2. YOUNGSTOWN No. 3. Zanesville 1,599 2,097 4,183 2, 810 3,000 5, 337 3,455 2, 058 5,998 3,291 3,839 G, 50G 3, 808 5,581 3,315 5,204 3,996 3,932 2, 906 2,366 1,452 2, 162 823 1,839 3,166 3,116 1,913 3,805 1,428 5,129 9,075 4,360 2,298 1,520 "isg "162 162 167 259 93 204 195 199 141 363 252 293 774 559 526 310 453 270 421 413 401 268 213 (') 63 72 (') - 187 159 145 267 48 403 710 342 1,082 874 1,520 337 816 626 875 642 1^701 1,299 2,729 2, 525 1,708 2,000 1,326 2,092 1, 006 2,000 1,.389 1,057 771 698 741 1,328 243 3,000 6,501 2,460 794 663 1,099 219 595 480 624 463 1,132 290 1, 712 1,287 1,026 1,402 875 1,394 1,151 798 1, 036 704 115 2 39 10 131 12 650 1,721 116 1,371 212 212 373 536 112 1,311 4,005 1,264 Adair Alfalfa Atoka Beaver Beckham Blaine Bryan Caddo No. 1 . Caddo No. 2. Canadian Carter Cherokee Choctaw Cimarron Cleveland Coal Comanche. . . Cotton Craig Creek No. 1., Creek No. 2.. Custer Delaware Dewey Ellis Garfield Garvin Grady No. 1. Grady No. 2. Grant Greer Harmon Harper ,019 ,313 ,600 ,412 320 233 557 185 279 35 187 187 214 129 152 110 123 526 195 97 115 105 103 176 272 152 110 125 138 93 72 318 705 966 372 767 527 1,014 758 436 748 1,400 728 550 1,813 590 487 430 525 456 659 1,153 222 426 661 294 707 577 343 586 1,057 505 639 37 "'56i' 525 423 423 1,208 437 297 457 339 511 922 522 336 461 374 411 311 300 217 222 310 244 349 635 377 205 280 245 286 232 295 325 218 282 511 268 346 36 '356' 259 261 258 565 204 217 129 298 182 205 405 352 160 250 180 251 194 Quota filled by voluntary enlistments. APPENDIX TABLES. 139 Numbers of registrants, gross quota, credits, net quota, called, etc., sTiown hy local loards in every State — Continued. OKLAHOMA— Continued . Total regis- trants. Failed to ap- pear. Accepted physi- cally. Rejected Total claims foi e.xemp- Haekell Hughes Jackson Jefferson Johnston Kay Kingfisher Kiowa Latimer Le Flore , Lincoln Logan Love McClain McCurtain Mcintosh , Major , Marslmll , Mayes Murray , Muskogee No. 1 , Muskogee No. 2 Muskogee Noblo.'^ Nowata Okfuskee Oklahoma City No. 1. Oklahoma City No. 2. Oklahoma City No. 3. Oklahoma No. 1 Oklahoma No. 2 Okmulgee Osage Ottawa Pawnee Payne Pittsburg No. 1 Pittsburg No. 2..- Pontotoc Pottawatomie Puslimataha Roger Mills Rogers Seminole Sequoyah Stephens Texas Tillman , Tulsa Tulsa , Wagoner , Wasliington Wasliita Woods Woodward 2,291 2,082 1,590 1,672 2,811 1, 465 2,037 3,161 3,377 2, 59-1 1,954 1,169 1,508 3,021 2,580 922 1, 356 1,184 978 1,110 1,482 1,106 1,511 1, 955 1,899 3,223 2,513 2,745 3. 577 1,760 2,912 2,182 1,973 2,664 3,436 1,347 844 2,281 2,055 2,100 2,062 1,079 1,089 6,584 3,552 1,523 2,812 2,027 1,337 1,190 752 635 702 843 872 756 420 871 486 1,460 736 697 420 624 1,273 864 370 586 915 457 1,000 979 998 701 1,000 447 383 2,281 650 937 742 488 852 1,000 1,400 676 905 900 300 481 651 714 606 334 607 360 1,173 545 556 311 470 749 498 296 410 293 210 221 192 437 211 338 493 358 192 265 256 290 433 669 414 690 712 707 518 812 334 277 1,576 382 591 238 394 241 452 524 563 400 537 203 207 1,160 277 537 364 225 384 164 156 157 278 478 451 204 311 158 173 1,054 182 385 258 218 372 24 617 211 316 350 104 270 36-3 1 Baker 1,808 1,093 2,640 2, 287 1,234 1,969 429 304 820 1,622 517 629 652 210 128 310 259 153 243 49 35 93 60 74 73 168 142 253 199 101 245 57 13 54 242 28 64 35 42 % 60 52 I 39 10 38 150 10 90 42 5S 28 23 81 175 200 177 18 32 27 128 141 111 22 39 73 51 21 48 32 82 25 36-1 2 Clatsop 121 06 36 2 3 Currv 103 254 21 29 47 122 35 103 25 80 5 64 20 16 35 86 1 4 71 87 27 114 5 18 53 17 81 20 10 13 29 8 33 19 6 10 2 10 36-3 4 Grant 10 3&-3- 5 Harney 50 ' Quota filled by voluntary enlistments. 140 REPORT OF THE PROrOST MARSHAL GENERAL. Numbers of registrants, gross quota, credits, net quota, catted, etc., sTiovm by local boards in every State — Continued. OREGON— Continued. Local board. Total regis- Gross quota. Enlist- ment credits. Net quoU. CaUcd for tlon. Failed to ap- pear. Accepted cm- Total claims tor exemp- tion and discharge. Claims allowed. Claims disal- lowed. Certified to district boards. 36 1 5 Hood Kiver 612 1, 415 403 605 1,274 705 2,641 389 1, 820 1,236 1,962 1,064 626 1,122 1,190 70 162 45 69 144 81 299 47 210 144 107 283 24 94 102 36 454 23 231 82 45 ''I j| 31 (') 14 16 25 42 4 3g 9 5 80 9 49 22 27 17 6 26 36-2- 6 36 7 80 188 10 4 64 116 6 56 83 57 18 50 15 7 45 Lake 68 36 2 10 85 8 55 22 36 28 7 29 36 2 11 T inn 270 18 187 55 110 99 11 93 36 1 8 Marion No 2 354 73 130 140 428 31 157 200 143 1 91 43 55 36 19 58 36 2 12 Polk 36 1 10 2,919 1,857 1,961 1,916 2,052 1,622 1, 659 688 2,075 449 728 2,383 1,539 1,098 1,150 1,905 351 1,417 36 1 13 36 1 14 36 1 16 36 1 17 2,235 52 84 278 183 128 137 221 41 172 2,450 21 164 230 169 112 112 179 37 209 36 3 8 100 7 79 14 38 27 11 52 161 42 60 106 138 9 1 7 2 11 14 114 35 42 64 101 7 34 7 14 31 23 2 25 17 27 36 73 4 20 12 21 28 44 1 5 5 6 8 25 3 92 36 3 10 13 Wallowa 23 Wasco 36 36 1 22 Washino-ton . . . 53 36 3 12 Wheeler 7 36 1 ''3 Yamhill PENNSYLVANIA. Adams Allegheny No. 1... Allegheny No. 2... Allegheny No. 3... Allegheny No. 4... Allegheny No. 5... Allegheny No. 6... Allegheny No. 7... Allegheny No. 8... Allegheny No. 9... Allegheny No. 10.. Allegheny No. 11. . Allegheny No. 12.. Allegheny No. 13.. Allegheny No. 14.. Allegheny No. 15.. Allegheny No. 16., Allegheny No. 17.. Allegheny No. 18., Allentown No. 1 Allentown No. 2 Altoona No. 1... Altoona No. 2... Armstrong No.l .. Armstrong No. 2.. Beaver No. 1 , Beaver No. 2 Beaver No. 3 Bedford Berks No 1 Berks No 2 Berks No 3 Blair No. 1 Blair No. 2 1,736 326 1,341 "'732' 224 Quota 1,492 2,105 1,425 1,069 1,504 1,551 1,002 3,581 2,200 1,405 1,400 1,224 2,150 1,600 1,042 2,010 1,300 923 1,100 550 426 351 585 1,001 950 3,324 2,221 2,808 700 1, 162. 1,075 1,299 1,100 1,329 1,170 1,500 1,091 583 1,193 938 769 2,175 1,732 1,014 999 1,023 971 1,036 637 1,649 947 637 680 378 715 509 1,346 1,664 1,651 506 709 657 668 515 812 779 1,097 728 579 731 563 450 1,648 1,245 682 755 548 1,197 612 473 1,326 510 349 579 295 223 165 220 444 481 1,788 1,230 968 356 581 418 427 303 596 752 1,044 661 476 348 391 1,539 1,155 654 680 442 1,106 574 379 1,218 480 330 537 267 203 143 182 363 371 1,638 1,052 894 ailed by Tolontary enlistments. APPENDIX TABLES. Numbers of registrants, gross quota, credits, net quota, called, etc., sTiovm PENNSYLVANIA— Continued. 141 local hoards in every (SYate— Continued. Bradford No. 1.. Bradford No. 2.. Bucks No. 1.... Bucks No. 2 Bucks No. 3 ButlorNo. 1.... Butler No. 2.... Butler No. 3.... Cambria No. 1.. Cambria No. 2.. Camliria No. 3.. Caniliria No. 4.. C:iip.rron Carbon No. 1.... Carl)on No. 2 Center Chestek No. 1.. Che.siter No. 2.. Ch.'sN.rNo. 1... Ch.-.sr.-rNo. 2... Ch.'Sl.jrNo. 3... Clarion Cl.'arlielil No. 1. Clrar'iel.l No. 2. Cl.-artiel.l No. 3. Coin ml. ia No. 1 Columbia No. 2 Crawford No. 1 Crawford No. 2 Cumberland No. 1. . Cumberland No. 2 . . Dauphin No. 1. . ... Dauplun No. 2 Daupliin No. 3 Delaware No. 1 Delaware No. 2 Delaware No. 3 Delaware No. 4 Easton Elk Erie No. 1 Erie No. 2 Erie No. 3 Erie No. 1 Erie No. 2 Fayette No. 1 Payette No. 2 Fayette No. 3 Favette Xo. -1 Fayette No. 5 Fayette No. (J Fayette No. 7 For(^st Franklin No. 1 Franklin No. 2 Fulton Greene Harrisburo No. 1. Harri.sburg No. 2. Harrisburo No. 3. Huntingdon Indiana No. 1 Indiana No. 2 Jefferson No. 1 Jel'ferson No. 2 Johnstown No. 1. . Johnstown No. 2. . Juniata Lackawanna No. 1. . . Lackawanna No. 2. . . Lackawanna No. 3. . . Lackawanna No. 4. . . 1,958 2,005 2,400 1,669 1,847 3,476 1,711 1,849 3, 591 3il58 2, 147 792 2,846 3,073 3,173 3,534 4,130 2,934 3,559 4,094 2. 603 2,810 2.661 2,870 1,928 2,728 2, 239 1,930 3,196 2,495 1,672 1.953 2,243 2,797 2.623 3,659 3, 379 4,342 3,427 3,148 2,109 2, 213 3,251 2,671 2,816 2,122 2,039 2,777 2, 356 2,119 671 2,121 1,677 2,756 2,557 3,442 2,765 4,112 2,477 2,141 3,892 3,763 1,038 2,387 2,392 2,568 2,373 1,130 350 396 1,325 "505 Called for raQed iiimina ttOB. 1,000 1,060 845 655 717 1,154 513 426 1,753 1,608 900 703 302 1,377 1,551 537 1,600 1,450 1,000 1,835 2,000 781 822 955 891 741 700 630 776 728 386 350 1,108 1,426 1,133 1,002 1,475 1,208 1,220 210 1,131 1,200 1,355 1,501 780 810 1,006 753 1,269 1,304 721 1,419 1,304 133 850 1,050 854 683 1,029 1,100 800 1,087 1,578 517 1,211 800 1,142 1,513 Accepted physi- cally. 499 395 430 615 309 324 1, 131 1,193 637 541 159 1,019 1,005 375 877 810 297 778 953 Rejected 862 927 1,101 1 Quota niled by voluntary enlistments. 142 EEPORT OF THE PROVOST MARSHAL GENERAL. Nzimiers of registrants, gross qiiota, credits, net guota, called, etc., shown, by local hoards in every State — Continued. PENNSYLVANIA— Continued. Lackawanna No. 5 Lancaster No. 1 Lancaster No. 2 Lancaster No. 1 Lancaster No. 2 Lancaster No. 3 Lancaster No. 4 Lawrence Lebanon No. 1 Lebanon No. 2 Lehigh No. 1 Lehigh No. 2 Luzerne No. 1 Luzerne No. 2 Luzerne No. 3 Luzerne No. 4 Luzerne No. 5 Luzerne No. C Luzerne No. 7 Luzerne No. 8 Luzerne No. 9 Luzerne No. 10 Luzerne No. 11 Lycoming No. 1 Lycoming No. 2 McKean No. 1 McKeanNo. 2 McKeesport No. IT McKeesport No. 2 Mercer No. 1 Mercer No. 2 Mercer No. 3 Mifflin Monroe Montgomery No. 1 Montgomery No. 2 Montgomery No. 3 Montgomery No. 4 Montgomery No. 5 Montour Newcastle norristown Northampton No. 1 Northampton No. 2 Northampton No. 3 Northampton No. 4 Northumberland No. 1. Northumberland No. 2. Northumberland No. 3. Northumberland No. 4. Perry Philadelphia No. 1. . . Philadelphia No. 2. . . Philadelphia No. 3. . . Philadelphia No. 4. . . Philadelphi-a. No. 5. . . Philadelphia No. C. . . Philadelphia No. 7... Philadelphia No. 8 . . . Philadelphia No. 9 . . . Philadelphia No. 10. . Philadelphia No. 11 . . Philadelphia No. 12. . Philadelphia No. 13. . Philadelphia No. 14. . Philadelphia No. 1.5. . Philadelphia No. 16. . Philadelphia No. 17. . Philadelphia No. 18. . Philadelphia No. 19.. Philadelphia No. 20. . Philadelphia No. 21. . Philadelphia No. 22. . Total regis- trants. 476 1,056 503 "614 751 1,194 340 213 2,310 110 590 310 Enlist- ment credits. CaUcd Tor e-xamina- tion. 1,702 1,600 1,606 1,490 2,800 1,402 1,001 2,567 1,576 600 810 700 734 763 604 550 637 591 659 1,000 640 600 120 170 1,200 680 726 2,039 ).,800 614 272 2,202 1,052 2,630 1,621 2,148 205 1,500 546 700 872 3,317 1,599 735 802 887 880 765 1,730 1,976 1, 695 2,458 1,031 1,036 1,000 2,045 1,200 1,656 1,100 1,600 1,611 554 1,050 650 1,391 1,700 1,000 1,122 1,400 Faned pear. Accepted physl- caUy. 1,091 1,066 1,135 1,617 1,057 464 558 357 538 525 194 387 355 447 224 667 402 407 77 105 915 549 499 1,077 1,059 348 120 990 1,055 1,082 964 1,258 142 1,163 316 505 426 1,945 1,163 511 1,068 1,316 587 1,114 614 1,048 1,009 Rejected ■ physi- cally. 650 947 305 315 1,258 782 276 378 446 359 410 273 189 324 258 342 536 262 273 53 94 630 411 308 1,148 600 237 " 75 877 1,262 616 1,043 95 755 204 404 463 408 375 265 1,610 845 031 611 705 177 272 716 490 749 535 575 621 1,195 727 238 340 320 256 351 235 189 236 222 322 486 239 164 143 59 757 521 1,217 577 995 68 747 165 342 343 1,470 Claims disal- > Quota filled by voluntary enlistments. APPENDIX TABLES. 143 Numbers of registrants, gross quota, credits, net quota, called, etc., shown hy local boards in every /Siote— Continued, PENNSYLVANIA— Continued. Accepted "^i* 'ly!" Total claims for Claims disal- lowed. Philadelphia No. 23. PmLADELPmA No. 24. Philadelphia No. 25. Philadelphia No. 26. Philadelphia No. 27. Philadelphia No. 28. Philadelphia No. 29. Phil.adelphia No. 30. Philadelphia No. 31. Philadelphia No. 32. Philadelphia No. 33. Philadelphia No. 34. Philadelphia No. 3.5. Philadelphla No. 36. Philadelphia No. 37. Philadelphia No. 38. Philadelphia No. 39. Philadelphia No. 40. Philadelphia No. 41. Philadelphia No. 42. Philadelphia No. 43. Philadelphia No. 44. Philadelphia No. 45. Philadelphia No. 46. Philadelphia No. 47. Philadelphia No. 48. Philad'slphi-a No. 49. Philadelphia No. 50. Philadelphia No. 51. Pike Pittsburgh No. 1. . . , PlTT.SBURUH No. 2 PiTTSBURfiH No. 3 PlTTSBURUH No. 4 Pittsburgh No. 5 Pittsburgh No. 6 Pittsburgh No. 7 Pittsburgh No. 8 Pittsburgh No. 9 Pittsburgh No. 10 Pittsburgh No. 11 Pittsburgh No. 12 Pittsburgh No. 13 Pittsburgh No. 14 — Pittsburgh No. 15 Pittsburgh No. 16 — Pittsburgh No. 17 Pittsburgh No. 18 Pittsburgh No. 19 Pittsburgh No. 20 Pittsburgh No. 21.... Potter Reading No. 1 Reading No. 2 Reading No. 3 Reading No. 4 Schuylkill No. 1 Schuylkill No. 2 Schuylkill No. 3 Schuylkill No. 4 Schuylkill No. 5 Schuylkill No. 6 Schuylkill No. 7 SCRANTON No. 1 , SCRANTON No. 2 , SCRANTON No. 3 SCRANTON No. 4 , ScRANTON No. 5 , Snyder Somerset No. 1 Somerset No. 2 Sullivan Susquehanna Tioga 2,153 2,739 2,993 3,781 2,635 3,806 2,922 3,152 2,709 3,370 2,741 5,395 2,002 6,368 2,140 3,241 4,773 3,315 3,087 4,422 2,914 2,346 4, 296 4,132 3,151 3,110 2,778 2,591 538 4,003 4,441 3,686 3,446 3,482 3,401 2,194 4,220 2,701 2,888 1,428 3, 18S 4,862 3,291 2,796 2,035 2,812 8,750 2,436 3,295 2,606 1,673 2, 183 2,342 2,353 3,117 3,763 2,532 1,831 1, 614 4,175 2,413 2,771 2,383 2,325 2,287 2,634 1,173 1,536 1,232 2,463 3,904 754 2,621 2,846 1,452 144 295 850 723 800 1,200 1, 151 1,300 1,240 1,650 796 1,570 802 2,300 905 1,250 1,573 1,759 1,504 2,811 1,295 9o2 2,312 1, 309 1,174 1,701 909 661 139 900 1,302 1,002 1,060 765 1,007 814 1,390 523 1,062 351 2,022 1,303 1,417 876 664 751 599 471 440 675 738 807 576 879 554 1,249 353 1, 652 681 785 1,006 1,245 867 1,671 990 596 358 905 740 1,060 616 496 113 640 795 672 792 794 622 624 962 485 723 298 1,191 877 939 697 460 261 663 428 665 623 302 344 354 374 404 434 131 219 206 591 223 289 422 410 431 520 1,140 261 356 1, 008 322 314 566 851 109 24 249 251 197 182 79 350 174 327 38 259 53 473 838 398 181 176 109 550 352 242 251 893 639 575 332 547 324 697 245 906 490 563 750 952 543 1,029 672 358 619 567 671 772 263 441 70 710 1,736 340 1,500 7 335 1,060 125 625 330 144 KEPOET OF THE PROVOST MAKSHAL GENERAL. Numlers of registrants, gross quota, credits, net quota, called, etc., shown hy local hoards in every State — Continued. PENNSYLVANIA— Continued. Local board. Total regis- trants. Gross quota. Enlist- ment credits. Net quota. CaUed tor tion. FaUed Accepted physi- cally. Rejected Total claims for exemp- tion and discharge. Claims allow d. Claims disal- lowed. Certified to district boards. 37-5-28 37-2-31 37-2-32 37-2-33 37-3-22 37-3-23 37-3-24 37-3-25 37-3-26 37-4-3G 37-3-27 37-3-28 37-3-29 37 3 30 Union 1,055 2,236 2,785 21775 4,026 4; 190 5,124 1,910 4,030 123 107 16 58 72 197 23/ 343 241 357 437 97 300 753 252 209 259 212 224 309 47 46 45 125 84 21 22 191 214 297 100 219 232 741 1,014 1,800 900 1^800 366 1,669 9 45 146 297 91 295 396 7 124 147 181 618 720 1,223 697 1,562 1,012 250 891 43 72 35 162 234 242 96 369 369 100 249 47 98 131 282 464 782 435 1,342 569 146 33 102 251 436 745 382 1,150 450 121 882 14 27 29 31 28 37 53 192 119 25 106 22 74 577 369 467 172 Warren 281 323 Washino-ton No ' 455 299 488 2,216 226 601 129 565 Wayne 130 Westmoreland No. 1 361 Westmoreland No. 3 ■Wootmnrelanr! Nn 4 3,370 2,783 3,462 2,823 2,994 4,119 2, 251 2,181 2,144 2,994 923 1, 857 1, 958 1,984 2,220 3,076 1, 151 1,440 854 967 1,000 2,301 180 210 190 022 335 168 102 853 1,229 1,300 114 71 115 83 39 321 11 21 5 38 21 7 4 1 32 38 858 OSS 625 831 647 862 125 122 145 452 192 108 58 619 844 1,075 179 229 114 117 215 213 44 67 40 132 122 53 44 227 353 224 655 858 400 543 419 1,436 77 77 319 117 85 34 425 582 701 557 771 278 490 391 1,373 66 74 68 264 31 76 400 507 C38 81 87 122 53 28 63 11 3 15 55 84 9 12 28 75 63 341 360 37-3-31 1 Westmoreland No. 5 37 3 32 1 Wpstmoreland No. 6 . . . 334 265 37 3 33 1 WVstmoreland No 7 311 37-3-34 37-4-38 37 4 39 Westmoreland No. 8 Wilkes-Barre No. 1 Wilkes-Barre No. 2 WlLKES-B.«RE No. 3 3,158 1,140 381 65 53 .37^^0 770 350 108 632 225 24 75 206 37-4-41 37 5 29 164 York No. 1 York No 2 31 37-5-30 446 403 38 224 37-5-32 37 5 33 334 York No 3 852 150 362 RHODE ISLAND. 3S-2- 1 38 2 2 SATJNDETtSTOWN No. 1 2,267 2,617 2, 462 2,474 2, 631 2,139 2,462 2,019 3;279 2,701 1,979 1,707 3,293 2,485 2,003 3,340 1,324 2,357 3,350 2,023 2,305 263 293 290 278 304 257 284 233 265 129 238 180 196 350 107 111 176 11 134 57 110 82 (') 150 173 57 254 174 196 52 55 77 46 53 58 45 81 54 255 490 245 517 387 13 4 11 29 429 101 311 182 108 71 165 95 233 157 216 182 151 137 193 167 16 20 20 8 189 69 38-2- 3 BUKRILLVILLE No. 3 132 94 38-1- 1 38 1 2 Barrington No. 5 Bristol No 6 1,350 902 225 1,391 1,018 759 352 243 394 208 277 304 184 472 381 240 1,852 81 59 1 46 40 54 49 7 15 15 12 24 10 4 54 447 324 177 709 472 458 138 163 104 163 222 118 177 160 149 1,209 258 252 48 452 208 145 59 65 98 58 67 54 45 146 52 36 590 777 285 151 608 402 374 215 127 230 148 185 251 259 87 1,021 734 285 111 550 412 268 188 81 146 62 124 163 79 248 210 82 984 • 43 ••••46" 53 11 10 17 43 21 24 10 11 3 45 5 37 162 38-2- 5 Central Falls No. 7 220 88 38-1- 3 38 2 7 271 Pawtucket No. 1 Pawtucket No. 2 Providence No. 1 Providence No. 2 Providence No. 3 Providence No. 4 Providence No. 5 Providence No. 6 Providence No. 7 Providence No. 8 Providence No. 9 Providence No. 10 263 38-2- 8 69i 321 291 112 38-1- 5 38 2 9 68 112 38-1- 6 77 83 38-1- 8 38-1 9 74 56 75 92 38-1-12 38-0 10 2,617 491 2,048 236 73 290 SOUTH CAROLINA. 39-2 1 Abbeville 1,959 3,834 2,488 1,977 1, 631 1,773 3,418 1,413 1,451 1,543 2,135 3,680 2,346 223 450 51 80 172 370 109 96 68 183 385 108 148 156 113 191 240 499 1,650 372 500 235 971 1,480 216 346 562 471 1,208 585 18 117 14 22 9 57 149 20 49 19 63 100 76 379 1,186 261 289 181 503 981 141 297 381 263 639 389 102 347 186 45 414 350 55 54 152 180 430 140 235 882 189 200 ~133 318 672 58 179 318 470 193 114 695 124 1G8 59 271 535 19 124 171 92 288 47 121 287 (5 31 77 47 137 39 55 147 3; 177 11'; 285 39-1 1 Aiken 691 Anderson, No. 1 134 118 709 207 398 173 168 182 436 24 31 65 20 127 39-1 2 221 39 1 3 Barnwell 446 115 39 1 5 Berkeley 230 39 ] 6 ( alhoun 3S1 3q_l 7 Charleston, No. 1 i'harleston, No. 2 harleston l!;l 39-1- 8 694 267 390 27 3-17 APPENDIX TABLES. 145 Niimhers of registrants, gross quota, credits, net quota, called, etc., shown by local hoards in every State — Continued. SOUTH CAROLINA— Continued. Enlist- credits. Galled lor Failed examina- to ap- pear. Accepted Rejected cally. Claims disal- 586 117 254 72 298 93 209 15 8G7 426 370 103 274 307 298 58 151 179 233 84 175 196 225 200 259 135 150 251 214 181 283 186 182 205 194 176 160 105 267 (') 240 121 125 801 778 1,102 618 542 658 563 406 806 482 1,500 1,299 1,600 588 467 1,016 7B7 210 551 950 450 802 902 371 375 1,302 1,108 456 305 643 632 161 377 601 389 524 485 241 199 512 SOUTH DAKOTA. Armstrong.. . Aurora Beadle Bennett Bon Homme . Brookings. . . Brown Brule Buffalo Butte Campbell Charles Mix.. Clark 14 I Clay Coddington. Corson Custer Davison. . . . Day Deuel Dewey Douglas Edmunds... Fall River. . FaiUk 650 1,842 200 1,023 1,502 2,966 686 151 753 453 1,314 1,080 952 1,307 890 347 1,126 1,462 816 499 595 683 718 615 (') 34 48 122 "68 27 ^21 59 35 49 23 36 32 I Quota ailed by voluntary enlistments. 119 73 137 S3 84 72 'Included 146 Numbers of registrants, REPORT OF THE PROVOST MARSHAL GENERAL. quota, a'edits, net quota, called, etc., sTiown hy local loards in every State — Continued. SOUTH DAKOTA— Continued. Total regis- trants. CaJled for eiamma- FaUed pear. Rejected physi- caliy. tion and discharge. Claims lowed. 40-1-26 10-1-27 40-1-28 40-1-29 40-1-30 40-1-31 40-1-32 40-1-33 40-1-34 40-1-35 40-1-36 40-1-37 40-1-38 40-1-39 40-1-40 10-1-1 1 J0-1-J2 40-1-43 40-1-44 40-1-45 40-1-46 t 40-1-47 40-1^8 40-1-49 40-1-50 40-1-51 40-1-52 40-1-53 40-1-54 40-1-55 40-1-56 40-1-57 40-1-68 40-1-59 40-1-68 40-1-60 40-1-61 40-1-62 40-1 -63 40-1-66 40-1-67 Grant Gregory Haakon Hamlin Hand Hanson Harding Hughes Hutchinson. Hyde Jackson Jerauld Jones Ivingsbury.., Lake Lawrence. . . Lincoln Lyman McCook , McPherson. . Marshall Meade Mellette Miner Minnehaha.. Moody Pennin.Ert.on . Perkins Roberts. .. Sanborn. . , Spink. . . . Stanley... Si lly Todd Tripp Turner Union . . . . Walworth. Yankton.. Ziebach . . , 540 225 1,250 1,179 1,430 660 1,630 268 248 280 1,051 1,411 989 765 1, 236 423 16 • 45 74 37 67 (') 116 25 (') 37 22 91 37 49 50 40 67 61 (') 90 42 (') 64 (') 17 (') 104 41 53 ll-l- 1 4l-:i- 1 41-2- 1 41-1- 2 41-1- 3 41-1- 4 41-1- 5 41-3- 2 U-2- 2 41-1- 6 41-1- 7 41-1- 8 41-3- 3 11-2- 3 41-1- 9 1-3-4 1-1-10 41-3- 5 41-2- 4 41-3- 6 41-3- 7 41-3- 8 41-2- 5 41-3- 9 41-3-10 41-2- 6 41-2- 7 Anderson Bedford Benton Bledsoe Blount Bradley Campbell Cannon Carroll Carter Chattanooga No. 1 Chattanooqa No. 2 Cheatham Chester Claiborne Clay Cocke Coffee Crockett Cumberland Davidson No. 1 Davidson No. 2 Decatur Dekalb Dickson Dyer Fayette 1, 168 1,658 994 516 2,414 1,316 2,080 773 1,755 1,505 3,117 3,828 837 760 1,705 668 1,672 1,168 1,208 661 1,904 1,352 790 1,265 1,462 2,652 2,430 172 85 50 122 122 160 91 191 (') 182 223 (') 204 145 83 143 150 217 746 272 250 1,307 1,316 145 37 114 139 125 164 183 ' Quota filled by voluntary enlistments. APPENDIX TABLES. 147 Nuinhers of registrants, gn quota, credits, net quota, called, etc., sJiown by local boards in every State — Continued. TENNESSEE— Continued. Total regis- trants. Enlist- crcdits. Called for ! tlon. Failed to ap- pear. Accepted physi- cally. Rejected Total claims for exemp- 41-3-11 41-a-12 41-2- 8 41-3-15 41-1-11 41-1-12 41-3-14 41-1-14 41-1-15 41-1-13 41-1-16 14-2- 9 41-2-10 41-1-17 41-2-11 41-2-12 41-2-13 41-3-15 41-3-16 41-3-17 41-3-18 41-1-18 41-1-19 41-1-20 41-1-21 41-1-22 41-1-23 41-1-24 41-2-14 41-2-15 41-3-19 41-3-20 41-3-21 41-1-25 41-1-27 41-2-16 41-a-22 41-2-17 41-1-26 41-3-23 41-3-24 41-1-28 41-2-18 41-2-19 41-2-20 41-2-21 41-2-22 41-1-29 41-3-25 41-3-26 41-1-30 41-3-27 41-3-28 41-3-29 41-3-30 41-2-23 41-3-31 41-2-24 41-3-32 41-1-31 41-3-33 41-1-32 41-1-33 41-3-34 41-3-35 41-1-34 41-1-35 41-1-36 41-2-25 41-2-26 41-3-36 41-3-37 41-1-37 Fentress Franklin Gibson Giles Grainier Greene Gn-.ndy IlamiltonNo. 1. Hamilton No. 2 . Hamblen Hancock Hardeman Hardin Hawkins Haj-wood Henderson Henry Hickman Houston Humphreys. . . . Jaclvson James Jefferson Knox No. 1 Knox No. 2 Knoxville No. 1. Knoxville No. 2. Lake Lauderdale Lawrence Lewis Lincoln Loudon McMinn McNairy Macon Madison , Marion , Marshall Maury Meigs , Memphis No. 1... Memphis No. 2... Memphis No. 3... Memphis No. 4... Memphis No. 5... Monroe Montgomery Moore , Morgan , Nashville No. 1 . Nashville No. 2. Nashville No. 3 . Nashville No. 4 . Obion Overton Perry , Pickett Polk Putnam , Rhea Roane Robertson Rutherford Scott Sequatchie Sevier Shelby No. 1 Shelby No. 2 Smith Stewart Sullivan 300 587 1,306 689 713 1,212 268 600 1,028 450 240 251 244 200 299 230 370 631 136 401 252 380 250 1,000 300 303 277 211 700 231 110 40 459 217 153 94 ' 197 40 55 59 42 55 52 71 180 25 73 77 ' Quota filled by voluntary enlistments. 148 Numbers of registrants, EEPOET OF THE PROVOST MABSHAL GENERAL. quota, credits, net quota, called, etc., sTiown ly local hoards in every State — Continued. TENNESSEE— Continued. Looal board. Total trants. Gross quota. Enlist- ment credits. Net quota. Called for examma- tlon. Failed to ap- pear. Accepted Rejected Total claims for discharge. Claims aUowod. Claims disal- lowed. Certified to district boards. 2,042 2,(i40 452 7(i8 7t)ti 250 238 307 53 90 90 29 150 279 111 ,309 137 204 242 13 56 2 19 10 1 12 143 5 34 8 104 26 225 251 51 71 80 28 138 136 106 275 129 100 216 868 746 242 312 114 29 53 1 2 7 2 539 584 180 220 200 70 301 108 61 85 175 38 431 351 131 140 145 64 225 284 113 131 125 31 206 18 9 20 24 326 4] " ''7 Tiploii 299 41-3-39 41 1 38 Trousdale 66 89 Union 80 40 41-3^1 2,316 981 2, (i47 1,191 l.V^O 2,069 725 666 1, 050 561 300 832 32 33 32 14 18 436 267 770 887 139 693 257 367 248 160 43 139 270 162 564 278 117 435 263 90 466 44 396 7 52 42 73 39 166 41-3-42 41 2 "8 Wayne ^Ypakley 137 304 41-3-43 41-3-44 While Williamson 155 116 265 42-2- 2 And.T-on Atidre;,VH 2, 836 64 1,991 113 495 297 1, 136 3,210 1,750 331 8 239 13 58 35 131 370 2U4 6 41 293 92 111 41 8 182 2 8 30 59 383 43 1 55 31 50 290 8 57 11 50 72 (M 161 5 35 238 61 61 172 172 238 38 14 179 357 153 217 47 27 30 149 153 102 97 26 101 229 86 253 18 46 272 16 128 1,384 64 240 50 213 10 450 152 14 12 5 11 "'■■96' 990 32 189 35 160 10 295 242 17 39 10 42 60' 681 21 138 25 110 4 226 463 21 129 22 4 183 218 9" 3 30 '"'43' 470 17 63 18 42-4- 2 42-1- 2 42-1- 3 42-3- 2 42-4- 3 42-1- 4 42-1- 5 42-4- 4 4'5 3 3 82 ArrastroBK Ata3t-osa.. 6 119 Austin 800 11 635 165 4S6 ■ 314 155 C35 Bailev 354 2,503 786 935 2,242 2,305 2,756 386 127 1,700 3, 358 1,6.50 2,084 444 270 120 974 297 252 804 724 1,000 118 618 1,360 638 587 244 107 10 120 '"'si' 60 63 178 5 '"'39' 50 44 83 260 217 191 535 338 744 65 520 996 348 543 106 71 27 15 80 23 209 145 83 25 23 59 314 176 44 48 36 57 39 15 44 10 138 358 336 485 42 42 292 658 287 250 83 41 10 125 290 266 409 41 211 548 229 164 81 37 70 75 1 2 81 110 58 2 4 217 Boo 65 42-1- 6 Bell.\-o. 1 Boll No. 2 245 536 310 45 15 199 3S9 190 242 51 31 33 213 219 109 227 41 120 274 103 49 281 20 52 354 118 160 192 72 7 1 20 32 37 25 4 4 3 64 66 7 130 15 19 45 17 10 2 6 82 102 32 228 42-1- 8 42-1- 9 42-4- 6 335 Blanco 42 Borden 24 228 42-2- 3 42-3- 4 42-3- 5 413 ISO Brazos 318 56 42-4 6 Briscoe 35 42-3- 6 42-1- 7 „ 1,789 1,878 932 1,944 357 1,022 556 406 414 445 130 502 41 44 16 66 6 9 402 326 308 240 91 375 112 27 41 33 127 291 212 205 307 65 196 143 174 239 41 235 95 69 6 68 24 3 209 178 42 1 13 Burnet 128 42 1 14 Caldwell 111 42-3- 7 Calhoun 50 116 42-3- 8 42 2 4 p 885 416 402 240 27 18 328 142 47 70 312 101 212 60 100 150 42-A 9 Carson 91 42-2- 5 P 169 444 3,000 1,019 72 167 967 105 4 2 17 53 57 747 81 12 27 164 24 29 82 556 57 28 49 471 54 1 74 3 26 42 3 9 Cham hers 63 42 ' 6 Cherokee 304 17 42-4- 12 42-4- 13 42-4- 14 Cochran ' Coke 412 1,816 2,5i,5 1, 88() 7i;o 1,734 784 2,020 585 2,348 2,042 G39 48 212 '"53s" 203 91 238 68 277 240 74 8 36 ■■"i38' 7 23 8 22 7 62 66 16 40 176 231 169 82 180 83 216 61 215 175 59 326 412 1,150 1,000 400 510 354 1,132 3 2 1,031 925 315 8 25 74 51 15 65 26 28 19 13 65 13 211 329 732 705 311 387 243 833 275 809 6«8 243 104 58 344 244 73 77 3:i 233 46 162 172 45 136 238 514 529 239 239 192 642 204 5.8 603 190 72 63 491 446 211 137 141 586 190 556 491 183 64 175 23 83 5IJ 51 5;; 14 76 7 136 266 42-2- 7 t'ollin No. 1 244 250 42 i 16 Colling.sworth 1(»0 42 3- 10 Colorado 22i) 137 25:1 42 4 18 103 42 2 8 Cook 283 49 I ig Coryell 230 74 42-1- 17 Crane' voluntary enlistments. Probably unorganized. APPENDIX TABLES. 149 Numbers of registrants, gross quota, credits, net quota, called, etc., . TEXAS— Continued local boards in every State — Continued. Crockett Crosby Cullicrson Dulbm Dallas No. 1. Dallas No. 2. Dall.\s No. 3. D-ALLAS No. 4. Dallas Dawson Deaf Smith Delta Denton DeWitt Dickens Dimniitt Donley Duval Eastland Ector Edwnrds Ellis Xo, 1 Elli^ X,., -2 El Taj^o Xo. i El Paso No. 2 El Paso Erath Falls Fannin Fayette Fisher Flovd Foard Fort Bend Fort Worth No. 1 . Fort Worth No. 2. Fort Worth No. 3. Fort Worth No. 4. Franklin Freestone Frio Gaines Galveston Galveston rza. Gillespie. Glasscock. Goliad.... Gonzales.. Grav Griiuu? Guadalupe. Hale Hall Hamilton... Hansford . . . Hardeman. Hardin Harris Harrison Hartley Haskoil Hays HamphilL. Henderson. HiU No. 2. Hockley -.. Hood Total regis- 1,101 237 284 452 482 306 130 1,350 131 13 11 14 112 117 7 22 89 5 100 343 52 250 363 658 497 552 2,207 196 142 938 1,401 502 266 200 656 633 71 63 1,010 801 2,403 3,132 2,037 1,212 1,260 1,416 681 550 436 1, 000 100 271 996 1,000 715 520 1,160 157 413: 42 758 2,100 1,203 1,096 406 128 1,044 Accepted cally. 359 346 1,295 164 86 657 906 334 218 C7 390 464 48 101 728 541 1,432 880 438 408 577 89 322 479 52 29 525 1,204 934 64 450 376 106 691 Rejected cally. Total claims for e-\emp- 300 31 75 477 389 1,221 1,329 1,056 732 445 649i 313 219 252 233 1 Quota filled by voluntary enlistments. 323 81 219 2 Probably unorganized. 243 200 30 73 304 305 1,107 1,108 932 639 333 514 173 149 167 Claims 150 EEPOKT OF THE PEOVOST MARSHAL GENEKAL. Numbers of registrants, gross quota, credits, net quota, called, etc., shown iy local hoards in every State — Conlimiecl. TEXAS— Continued. Enlist- ment Accepted cally. Rejected cally. Total claims for Claims disal- Hopkins Houston No. 1. HoUBTON No. 2. Houston No. 3., Houston No. 4. Houston Howard Hudspeth Hunt No. 1 Hunt No. 2 Hutchinson Irion Jack Jackson Jasper Jeff Da\-is Jefferson No. 1.. Jefferson No. 2.. Jim Hogg Jim Wells Johnson Karnes Kaufman Kendall Kent Kerr Kimble King Kinney Kleberg Knox Lamar No. 1 Lamar No. 2 Lamb Lampasas Lares ' La Salle Lavac^ Lee Leon liberty Limestone Lip.-comb Live Oak Llano Lo\ing ' Lynn Lubbock McCuUough McLennan No. 1. McLennan No. 2. McMullen Marion Martin MaFon Matagorda Maverick Medina Menard Midland Milan Mills Mitchell Montagtie Montgomery. . . Moore Morris Motley Nacogdoches.. Nava,rro No. 1. Navarro No. 2. 2,076 2,023 2,255 5,015 3,057 2,612 778 184 2,726 1,703 105 157 832 822 1,617 197 4,343 4,334 173 621 3,139 2,229 1,674 3,735 397 396 495 114 230 668 1,025 2,534 2,203 164 844 319 209 (') 351 (') 41 % 13 24 69 140 691 439 36 541 300 341 108 716 770 173 480 1,542 948 1,404 1,200 160 235 465 349 767 248 46 418 283 43 25 368 204 261 55 64 265 1,216 144 75 73 668 336 1,148 1,000 72 284 329 2,506 1,204 1,580 1,374 3,558 328 587 477 1,374 948 116 '"244 518 1,122 987 2,120 2,476 110 1,106 816 105 447 1,285 594 1,119 320 321 3,744 765 743 1,942 423 2,324 2,592 ' Quota filled by voluntary enlistments. APPENDIX TABLES. 151 Numbers of registrants, gross qiiota, credits, net. quota, called, etc., sTioum hj local hoards in every State — Continued. TEXAS— Continued. Enllst- credlts. FaUed pear. Accepted phvsl- caUy. Relectet Total claims for Newton Nolan Nueces Ochiltree Oldham Orange Palo Pinto Panola Parker Parmer Pecos Polk Potter Presidio Raines Randall Reasjan Real Red River Reeves Refugio : Roberts Robertson Rockwall Runnels Rusk San Antonio No. 1. San Antonio No. 2. San Antonio No. 3. San Antonio No. 4. Sabine San Ausustine San Jacinto San Patricio San Saba Schleicher Scurry , Shackelford Shelby , Sherman Smith Somervell , Starr , Stephens Sterling Stonewall Sutton Swisher Tarrant Taylor T,'rrell T^rry Throckmorton Titus Tom Green Travis Trinity Tyl Upshur Upton Uvalde Val Verde.. Van Zaadt. Victoria Waco Walker Waller Ward....... Washington Webb 1 Wharton Wheeler Wichita 959 1,073 1,787 278 96 1,611 1,537 1,979 1,832 219 402 1, 685 1,612 2,961 360 443 196 2,540 821 1,640 2, 571 3,055 3,648 2, 809 2,894 1,152 1,224 819 803 1,025 245 922 381 2,454 131 3,768 338 537 556 106 574 220 428 3,558 2,273 188 316 381 1,456 1,621 2,338 1,283 847 2,002 41 721 839 2,554 1,804 3,693 1,361 1,154 175 2,347 2,162 2,149 605 3,400 1,457 133 142 148 20 40 185 (') 63 78 34 5 15 320 200 14 295 38 56 61 12 64 25 39 347 123 19 34 42 153 237 76 82 208 4 ^^7 272 72 (') 135 119 20 198 129 147 505 125 24 50 842 226 210 75 808 400 494 1, 155 325 213 172 173 441 510 313 499 450 127 320 232 667 50 1,400 202 537 300 59 520 95 178 2,094 620 76 150 168 682 482 1,177 172 359 1,399 1,450 254 300 252 175 571 2,162 451 210 452 94 37 492 169 294 479 173 129 72 113 177 238 154 174 229 34 205 88 347 29 661 306 140 24 220 34 87 1,025 351 25 77 411 186 734 103 130 56 50 67 238 1,197 110 70 204 ' Quota filled by voluntary enlistments. 152 EEPOET OF THE PKOVOST MAKSHAL GENERAL. Numlen of registrants, gross quota, credits, net quota, called, etc., slwwn hy local hoards in every State — Continued. TEXAS— Continued. Local board. Total regis- trants. quota. Enlist- ment credits. Net quota. Called for examina- tion. FaUed to ap- pear. Accepted Rejected ^0: Total claims for exemp- tion and discharge. Claims allowed. Claims disal- lowed. Certified to district boards. 4''-4 105 Wilbarger 1,348 87 4,562 1,660 13 2,031 2,295 91 1,091 223 158 8 542 193 238 269 10 127 26 19 112 34 232 174 29 24 2 19 15 1 46 19 2 209 245 8 108 11 18 227 5 176 23 152 118 33 83 4'' 3 46 Willacv 42-1- 76 Williamson Wilson 1,300 115 10 1,380 1,290 24 260 100 163 35 33 57 3 7 913 60 989 856 20 123 69 172 20 «l 358 4 37 24 591 59 5 808 607 11 128 42 509 50 4 734 586 4 60 42 82 9 1 74 216 68 380 4'^ 1 78 Winkler 4'>^ 106 Wise 3''6 Wood 4'^ 4 107 Yoakum 19 4o_4 j()3 151 Zavalfa Beaver Box Elder Cache Carbon Davis Duchesne Emerv Garfield Grand Iron Juab Kane Millard Morgan OODEN Piute Rich Salt Lake No. 1 Salt Lake No. 2 Salt Lake City No. 1.. Salt Lake City No. 2 . Salt Lake City No. 3.. Salt Lake City No. 4.. San .Tuan Sanpete Sevier Summit Toocle Uinta Utah Wasatch Washington Wayne Weber 1,254 27 133 301 30 108 79 106 1,811 570 742 370 600 383 165 G 250 592 553 335 705 119 175 50 240 33 146 15 60 36 48 1,116 340 463 166 327 190 64 4 130 234 219 131 281 65 72 28 151 4 ! 1 1 Addison 1,412 1.749 1,947 3,262 632 2,378 319 794 1,162 1,839 2,876 919 3,169 2,044 165 204 224 403 73 267 37 92 135 213 42 77 204 373 30 221 5 61 67 121 123 127 20 30 43 46 32 31 68 92 150 57 22 C) 208 540 572 106 180 263 271 100 163 312 560 906 217 132 i 8 7 40 8 1 4 19 1 39 320 385 65 126 108 161 72 83 183 236 446 116 64 169 196 J? 92 85 18 66 110 243 420 49 225 211 45 63 77 139 51 63 117 208 290 68 59 165 35 46 58 101 35 26 163 210 57 41 59 31 10 17 19 16 16 7 31 45 80 11 18 202 44 1 4 6.-, Franklin 44 1 7 Grand Isle 46 44 1 8 39 119 Orleans .'.■::::■.■.:::::: 44 1 11 Rutland No 1 44 1 1'^ 448 375 241 360 241 353 255 152 "9 37 44-1-15 1,288 109 523 648 337 266 71 277 > Quota filled b; voluntary enlistments. APPENDIX TABLES. Numbers of rcgisirards, gross quota, credits, net quota, called, etc., sitown ly local hoards in every State — Continued. VIRGINIA. Total regis- trants. Accepted Claims disal- lowed. Certified to di-itrict boards. Accomac Albemarle Alexandria Alleghany Amelia Amlierst Appomattox .... .\ugiista Bath Bedford Bland Botetourt Brunswick Buchanan Buckingham Campbell Caroline Carroll Charles City Charlotte Chesterfield Clarke Craig ■. - Culpepor Cumberland Dickenson Dinwiddle Elizabeth City . . . Essex Fairfax Fauquier Floyd Fluvanna Franklin Frederick Giles Gloucester Goochland Grayson Greene Cireensville Halifax Hanover Henrico Henry Highland Isle of Wight.... James City King George King and Queen . King William... Lancaster Lee Loudoun Louisa Lunenburg Lynchburg Madison Mathews Mecklenburg. . . . . Middlesex Montgomery Nansemond Nelson New Kent NOKFOLK No. 1... Norfolk No. 2... Norfolk No. 3... Norfolk Northampton Nortlmmberland . Nottoway Orange 3,168 2,998 2,488 1,853 719 3,047 557 2,10Q 410 1,304 1,593 1,154 408 1,320 1,480 561 360 875 676 871 4,776 1,546 508 1,473 1,685 967 545 1,671 1,474 942 822 1,388 445 917 2,880 1,360 1,414 1,161 378 1.206 408 395 1,647 1,148 1,305 2,683 677 627 2,292 570 1, 689 2,354 1,323 352 3,816 3,932 2,573 4,393 1, 597 911 1,178 882 1,160 511 186 103 137 102 63 61 13a 45 25 301 145 138 107 43 125 37 37 69 75 81 201 174 123 141 (') 65 72 170 57 65 145 129 39 67 105 1,001 152 402 500 390 255 439 331 527 151 440 373 234 527 240 50 1,292 680 427 416 176 372 74 100 232 201 243 622 601 344 406 295 294 537 252 263 379 333 128 328 386 251 1,751 244 457 40 6 Quota filled by voluntary enListmcnts. 1,019 429 387 144 230 256 140 681 111 708 113 253 375 320 190 239 218 391 118 343 237 188 99 133 178 270 769 87 140 380 197 249 122 499 224 207 157 268 241 104 113 239 157 1,173 154 198 279 200 154 BEPOKT OF THE PROVOST MARSHAL GENERAL, Numbers of registrants, gross quota, credits, net quota, called, etc., sTiown ly local hoards in every State — Continued. VIRGINIA— Continued. Enlist- ment credits. Called for examina- Failed to ap- pear. Accepted Rejected physi- cally. Total ?lainis for exemp- Page Patrick Pittsylvania No. 1 Pittsylvania No. '. Portsmouth.... Powhatan Prince Edward . . Prince George. . . Princess Anne. . . Prince William. . Pulaski Rappahannock. . Richmond No. 1. Richmond No. 2. Richmond No. 3 . Richmond No. 4. Richmond No. 5. Richmond Roanoke No. 1. . Roanoke No. 2. . Roanoke Rockbridge Rockingham . Russell Scott Smyth Southampton. . Spotsylvania . . Stafford Surry Sussex Tazewell Warren Warwick Washington . . . Westmoreland . Wise Wythe York 1,154 1,158 4,110 1,980 3,425 466 1,091 949 945 1,280 570 3,337 3,554 2,815 3,350 3,281 612 2,000 2,509 1,621 1,869 2,567 2,190 1, 815 1,485 1,632 2.190 1,216 615 909 1, 162 2,333 679 4,393 2,986 1,094 1,332 253 1,040 542 187 WASHINGTON. Adams Asotin Bellingham City. . . Benton Chelan Clallam Clarke Columbia Co«^litz Douglas Everett Ferry Franklin Garfield Grant Grays Harbor No. 1 Grays Harbor No. 2 Island Jefferson King No. 1 King No. 2 Kitsap Kittitas Klickitat Lewis Lincoln Mason Okanogan , Pacific 1,151 134 15 119 578 50 427 72 258 147 111 460 53 10 43 127 4 91 32 49 42 7 1,962 210 168 42 260 27 134 88 96 76 20 739 86 7 79 410 76 259 64 200 151 49 1,718 199 102 97 22 296 80 211 171 40 1,080 122 4 118 439 68 89 195 140 55 2,067 239 67 172 715 54 524 227 427 343 84 622 74 40 34 120 11 73 36 43 23 19 937 108 58 50 180 24 128 28 80 50 30 1,239 144 17 127 465 27 344 94 203 169 34 2,242 256 130 126 611 48 429 134 348 300 48 403 53 11 42 184 17 115 52 73 60 13 735 85 11 74 345 33 260 40 191 161 30 454 53 19 34 129 2 98 29 49 35 14 900 104 18 86 233 8 196 29 105 69 33 1,914 2,742 136 203 775 1,163 140 144 343 559 142 152 323 640 246 497 77 129 534 195 352 40 3 37 124 4 78 42 40 31 9 479 67 10 57 236 47 156 32 89 67 21 2,364 2, 555 187 204 780 1,309 74 160 479 751 159 373 343 506 283 479 60 27 569 i78 1.560 184 17 167 825 55 498 231 362 278 84 1, 739 203 113 90 360 34 250 76 161 127 34 849 98 23 75 350 41 229 74 154 117 36 2,887 334 172 162 958 480 245 342 265 67 1,918 232 26 ■ 206 650 78 470 102 277 243 34 472 54 7 47 233 28 133 62 81 64 6 1,561 181 29 152 708 52 447 209 253 203 50 1,525 177 35 142 61 486 378 317 61 APPENDIX TABLES. 155 Numhers ofregidninis, gross quota, credits, net quota, called, etc., sliown hy local boards in every -S'taie— Coutinued. WASHINGTON-Continued. Pend Oroille.. Pierce No. 1... Pierce No. 2... San Juan Seattle No. 1 Seattle No. 2 Seaitle No. :! Seattle No. 4 Seattle No. 5 Seattle No. (i Seattle No. 7. Seattle No. s. Se.attle No. i). Seattle No. IC Seattle No. 11 Seattle No. 1:^ Skagit , Skamania-! Snohomish No. Snohomish No. Spokane .\'o. 1 Spokane No, ?. Spokane No :', SroKASK N.. I Spokane .Nu. ■) Spokane Stevens Tacoma No. 1 . Taco.\ia No. 2 . Tacoma No. 3. Tacoma No. 4 . Thurston Wahkiakum. .. Walla Walla... Whatcom Whitman Yakima Total regis- 1,232 2,174 311 2,218 1,498 1,752 2, !)00 4, 370 1,023 1, 493 1,889 4, 885 1,461 1,555 2,782 252 1,731 1,254 1, 678 2,503 1,017 1, 505 1,649 3,062 1,824 1,505 1,892 1,854 1, 626 1,753 501 2,233 1,987 3,332 4,578 Enlist- ment credits. 1,551 144 5 350 543 832 79 447 314 441 487 266 331 392 1,113 788 333 304 377 240 1,000 214 438 921 1,301 1,510 Failed to ap- pear. Accepted Rejected cally. WEST VIRGINIA. 1,221 2,087 1,220 1,710 1,737 932 741 3,479 844 913 3,393 2,386 898 647 2,126 938 1,980 746 4,109 2,773 1,891 2,331 145 245 136 200 203 128 87 408 96 106 18 123 45 58 15 53 10 350 19 31 127 122 91 142 188 75 77 58 77 75 356 247 100 65 134 104 208 77 224 151 56 220 228 101 149 384 413 372 . 76 397 301 435 444 700 150 191 176 305 225 1,199 795 300 280 418 1,226 253 900 676 19 4 35 16 53 1 31 29 6 155 43 3 4 23 165 3 78 53 284 227 296 331 529 122 141 144 218 184 795 548 225 205 304 191 691 277 649 465 94 70 104 97 111 27 50 35 58 35 249 204 64 71 108 137 279 27 173 158 239 140 184 231 338 85 89 158 136 512 126 140 188 95 596 157 460 343 146 100 170 155 311 39 31 48 131 99 414 265 89 118 113 74 520 114 382 305 53 40 14 40 27 46 51 21 27 21 74 37 22 77 21 76 33 78 38 139 123 47 2 1 119 47 2 2 175 Brooke 216 47 1 4 Calhoun 118 47 2 4 87 47 2 6 376 702 110 75 246 109 232 85 99 10 10 112 5 218 8 274 47 1 7 47 2 7 199 109 47 1 9 Hancock 262 47 1 10 Hardy 110 47 1 11 Harrison No. 1 Harrison Xo. 2 Huntinodo.n No. 1 Huntingdon No. 2 260 47-1-12 808 433 161 47-2- 9 47 2 10 472 153 136 641 93 80 1, 1,59 3,082 3,190 1,518 1,519 4,081 4,706 4,256 1,623 157 883 715 360 552 1,426 1,126 1,149 232 60 54 10 14 200 133 210 12 109 655 529 283 354 981 849 740 180 43 168 133 178 245 144 199 40 58 442 356 165 278 667 456 369 114 19 393 266 146 182 487 339 260 87 39 49 90 18 64 180 117 93 27 95 266 47 2 12 Kanawha No 2 709 178 178 478 29 94 202 Lewis 137 1.54 47 2 14 605 47 2 16 McDowell No 1 550 47-2-17 47-1-15 McDowell No. 2 MarionNo. 1 1,086 281 4.54 'Quota filled by TOluntary enlistments. 256 REPORT OF THE PROVOST MARSHAL GENERAL. Nvjnhers of registrants, gross quota, credits, net quota, called, etc., shown hy local boards in every State — Continued. WEST VIRGINIA— Continued. Local board. Total regis- trants. Gross quota. Enlist- ment credits. Net quota. C^led for exam ilia- tion. Failed to ap- pear. Accepted Rejected Total claims tor exemp-^ tion »;nd disciiarge. Claims allowed. lowed. Certified to district boards. 47-1-16 47-1-17 47 2 15 Marion No 2 3,054 3,213 1,478 1,659 2,799 2; 468 2,616 1,025 652 1,995 1,657 774 484 1,458 1,875 1,278 4,355 2,111 1,253 1,533 1,539 1,502 1,507 1,009 1,156 1,878 914 1,749 4,739 539 3,085 1,343 546 373 173: 327 67 223 143 308 150 71 120 102 190 103 107 69 160 181 90 51 148 381 215 118 72 145 43 166 107 49 177 99 111 389 55 % 572 1, 000 200 439 559 749 515 461 219 700 736; 300: 220 416 30 71 13 19 24 11 65 40 8 6 61 45 3 26 505 328 332 135 322 400 526 342 230 200 a98 572 227 165 331 37 278 255 46 95 148 121 94 201 19 195 165 73 55 52 366 343 172 65 212 323 428 280 147 118 297 265 136 102 223 345 288 146 39 185 294 296 188 66 100 213 231 114 95 155 21 55 26 27 29 132 48 36 18 84 33 22 7 68 160 328 Mason 179 47-2-18 47-2-19 7-1-18 7 2 20 Mor^or Nr. 1 96 Mercer No. 2 526 197 309 304 119 77 232 193 95 57 169 237 149 487 245 146 177 181 175 194 118 131 220 107 205 595 63 354 154 335 95 119 201 12 8 72 12 5 6 342 50 106 30 28 105 36 132 28 11 85 43 94 206 8 375 29 137 140 Minfo 267 47-1-19 47-2-21 47-1-20 47 2 22 176 155 94 226 47-1-21 47-1-22 47-1-23 47-2-23 47-1-24 47-2-24 47-2-25 47-1-25 47-1-26 47-2-26 47-2-27 47-1-27 Ohio 239 111 65 182 316 1,461 690 393 145 399 261 534 486 213 599 448 423 1,078 145 8 36 8 1 30 11 18 20 9 46 14 5 267 2 259 937 517 292 113 276 132 430 294 140 380 345' 1,089 116 48 294 137 82 31 91 118 174 66 179 103 119 401 27 186 723 383 180 63 233 92 282 195 78 294 226 181 776 68 81 609 250 158 32 69 70 206 163 74 204 198 136 700 44 105 113 89 21 31 87 22 76 24 4 90 45 72 24 174 446 Randolph 73 Eitcliie 146 109 208 Taylor 61 239 47-1-29 47 1 30 Tyler 137 66 47-2-28 47-2-29 47-1-31 47-1-32 47-1-33 47-1-34 47-2-30 Wavnp 210 Webster 149 163 474 Wirt 72 370 25 241 59 153 123 30 119 780 2,627 2,677 1,651 2,319 '881 1,618 3,150 2,501 2,513 1,423 2,129 2,483 2,318 2,221 1,556 736 2,200 2,961 355 2,183 2,034 925 3,294 2,153 2,387 1,180 2,128 1,143 1,449 3,001 1,429 4,518 91 301 311 189 272 163 106 190 372 298 294: 167 9 270 132 122 171 27 11 73 345 217 104 33 82 29 179 67 101 136 95 117 27 81 190 134 182 193 176 169 53 80 29 171 119 % 129 ^5 193 112 7 90 16 278 376 120 600 364 400 522 467 517 100 359 732 468 775 702 800 850 165 ^'i32 283 113 197 529 % 756 %o 742 456 50 600 69 1,062 5 13 41 34 19 8 45 26 4 3 6 3 60 5 13 2 300 69 440 221 289 347 304 340 71 275 539 346 631 478 597 604 135 76 25 119 56 92 158 120 151 15 60 152 116 141 164 198 186 25 163 30 268 217 159 171 207 166 31 146 325 173 307 242 373 336 116 148 25 217 209 117 150 41 166 110 247 126 294 228 294 320 93 15 5 51 8 42 6 2 9' 36 78 47 13 14 79 16 23 144 48-5- 1 48-5 3 255 119 164 48^^ 2 Buffalo 194 48 5 4 Burnett 182 169 44 48-5- 6 48 4 3 161 255 220 830 48-4 6 Dane No 2 554 179 283 48 2 1 Dod^e No 1 304 530 182 85 261 341 42 185 129 85 158 261 13 290 6S 48 5 8 2 26 3 9' 284 183 74 146 381 131 74 3 51 103 175 123 24 100 195 141 63 22 75 169 34 CO 25 26 143 144 54 48-2- 3 Fond Du Lac No. 1 Fond Du Lac No. 2 110 48-2- 4 48 3- 5 606 107 380 251 277 138 250 132 168 355 166 526 316 136 154 122 298 103 57 20 161 265 150 248 215 35 40 701 417 176 390 224 347 212 43 12 352 48-4- 8 Green 211 48 3 6 Green Bay 48-2- 5 47 59 6 29 129 553 307 31 336 53 730 41 142 90 11 206 13 183 77 293 165 18 165 32 527 65 257 110 15 145 26 475 12 36 55 2 15 6 52 63 287 48-5-10 Iron . . 207 48 4 10 16 48-4 11 Jefferson 171 29 48-2- 6 Kenosha 369 ' Quota filled by voluntary APPENDIX TABLES. 167 Nvmhers ofregisiranis, gross quota, credits, net quota, called, etc., shown by local boards in every Staie — Continued. WISCONSIN— Contiuucd. Kenosh.a Kewaunee La Crosse La Crosse Lafayette Lanjlade Lincoln Madison Manitowoc No. 1 Manitowoc No. 2 Marathon No. 1 Marathon No. 2 Marinette Marquette MiLV.AUKEE No. 1... Milwaukee No. 2.., -Milwaukee No. 3... Milwaukee No. A... Milwaukee No. 5... Milwaukee No. 6.. Milwaukee No. 7.. Milwaukee No. 8... Milwaukee No. 9.. Milwaukee No. 10. Milwaukee No. 11. Milwaukee No. 12. .Milwaukee No. 13. Milwaukee .\o. 1-1. Milwaukee No. 15. Milwaukee No. 1 . . . Milwaukee No. 2. . . Monroe Oconto Oneida Outagamis No. 1.. Outagamis No. 2.. Ozaukee , Pepin Pierce , Polk Portage Price , Racine No. 1. . . . Racine No. 2 Racine , Richland , Rock No. 1 Rock No. 2 Rusk St. Croi-x Sauk Sawyer Shawano Sheboygan No. 1. Sheboygan No. 2. SXJPERIOR No. 1.. Superior No. 2.. Taylor Trempeauleau Vernon Vilas Walworth Washburn Washington Waukesha Waupaca Waushara Winnebago Wood Total regis- trants. 1,016 1, 256 2,765 1,253 2,224 1,828 1,621 4, 456 2,105 2,179 2,452 2,781 2,858 886 4,360 2,357 4,070 4, 462 2,441 2,219 3, 493 2,276 4! 016 4,146 4, 138 3,064 3, 522 2,727 3, 988 3,454 2,215 2,182 1,270 2,769 2,357 2,343 1,364 601 1,831 1,996 1^524 3,346 3,075 1,921 1,607 2,383 3,443 2,400 2,767 632 2,811 3,336 2^248 1,400 1,217 2,064 2,370 524 2,592 856 2,454 3,991 2,908 1,405 2,619 5,801 882 750 726 545 550 572 298 1, 108 800 1,135 1,784 1,070 1,000 1,147 900 720 1,216 1,300 1,100 721 800 940 2,009 2,126 115 72 578 382 743 499 604 1,050 700 260 1,002 1,525 1,124 409 214 420 612 739 188 70 FaUcd to ap- pear. Accepted caUy. 587 431 541 444 444 417 211 551 547 671 1,178 562 582 730 572 461 840 711 650 491 555 621 1,241 1,062 88 53 Kojected physi. cally. 397 440 1,564 990 49 19 459 505 575 250 331 392 1, 015 Claims