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»i<k'.d. In-
trinsic in the problem that confronted Congress in 1SC3 was
the necessity for creating a complete Federal instrumentality
for effecting the registration. The States, unhappily, wei'e not
at one in bearing out the Nation in this. 'When we afford our-
selves the satisfaction of saying that this coniiiticn no longer
subsists, we put the chief impediment to swift action out of
our reckoning. The gratifying and evident eagerness of the
States to do their utmost in aid of the Nation at this emergent
moment persuades u5 to indulge the belief not only that State
agencies can be used for this purpose, but that they promise
the swiftest and the most effective possible execution of the
law. It is not too sanguine, I think, to say that this considera-
tion breaks pur way directly to the light and insures t!ie reso-
lution of all our difficulties.
As an incident of elections, and in those elections themselves,
our people have long been practiced in presenting themselves at
accustOjined voting places to be polled for one purpose or
another by the agencies of the States. Tlie methods employed
in those enumerations are admirably adapted to the accom-
plishment of this, for we find in every State a mechanism for
registration and a people accustomed to its use. The details of
the local instrumentalities may differ, but all exist for a
single purpose that is, in essential substance, the purpose we
now entertain. It is true that those agencies are not at pres-
ent bound in a single uniform system responsive to a sole con-
trol, but the elimination of this objection is precisely our
problem. I can not think that it is dilKcuIt. The pending bill
contains the following provision, which I confidently believe
will become a law :
Snc. 5. That the President is hereby authorized to utilize
the service of any or all departments and any or nil oflicers
REPORT OF THE PKOVOST MARSHAL GENERAL.
or agents of the United States and of the several States,
Territories, and the District of Columbia in the execution
of this act, and all ofRcers and agents of the United States
and of the several States, Territories, and the District of
Columbia are hereby required to perform such duties in
the execution of this act as the President shall order and
direct, and ofDcers and agents of the several States shall
hereby have full authority for all acts done by them in the
execution of this act by the direction or request of the
President.
It is proposed to execute so much of the law as I have here
discussed along the following lines. By proclamation the
President will call upon persons of the designated classes to
present themselves on a certain day at the customary polling
places in their domiciliary voting precincts. These preciucts
are now delineated with contained populations of convenient
size for enumeration in one day. In nearly all of them there
is a provision of method and material to that end. The voting
precinct shall, therefore, be the primary registration area. For
each the service of registrars must be secured ; but, so well
are their population proportioned to enumeration, that in most
of tliem one registrar will be sufficient. It is felt that much
voluntary service will be offered. It would be gratifying to
think that in each precinct the position of registrar could be
filled by competent and responsible citizens who would claim
no compensation, but while I desire to encourage such offers,
I shall not rely on them.
For the purpose of securing prompt replies and of orderly
administration and centralization of control and for further
execution of the law, a local authority supervising an appro-
priate number of precincts is necessary. The county is, with-
out exception, I believe, the territorial and political subdivi-
sion into which all voting precincts integrate without over-
lapping. For this reason, registration in the precincts must be
under supervision of a county board of control. Other rea-
sons are these : After the registration is complete, selections
of persons to be called to the colors must be made based upon
the information found in the registration lists. While the
cl.nss from which soldiers are to come is to be segregated by
<lraft, tlie law is careful to provide for avoiding the misery
tliat war brings to dependents at home and for a choice of
tliose whose military service the Nation most needs and whose
civil and domestic service can best be spared. The important
duty of making the selection from the drafted class can
best be performed by a permanent board in each county com-
posed of citizens who can be relied upon to execute this solemn
function with even justice and with apprehension of its
gravity. This board shoidd control the process of selection
from its earliest steps, and therefore it must supervise the
registration. For the sake of uniformity, for the elimination
of expense, and for further and self-evident consideration, it
would be pi-escrihed that this board be composed of the sheriff,
who would act as its executive officer, the county clerk, who
would be the custodian of its records, and the county physi-
cian, who would serve as surgeon and pass upon the physical
fitness of those who are selected for service. In the normal
case tlie board must be so constituted, but county organization
is not uniform throughout the Nation, and, important as is the
requirement of homogeneity in the general pattern, it is not
desired to restrict the discretion of governors in adapting the
essentials of the plan to the peculiarities of local political in-
stitutions, in so far as that may be done without impairing the
fimction of the national machine. Cities of over 30,000 in-
habitants present a special case; while urban voting precincts
are as well adapted to registration as those in rural districts,
the supervisory county board is not suited to the municipal
organization of cities of so gi-eat a population. It is thought
that, for the execution of the law in such cities, boards similar
to the county boai-d sliould be constituted for one or more
wards to supervise the registration in indicated pro<'incts ami
to further execute the law. and that tlie various ward boards
should function under a central city Imard of control.
While the territorial (ir-aiiizatinns liere ili-^rrilird must be
preserved, and tlic pattern ni ri.iiuly and city iimiiol must not
be distributed, there sliall not lie laid down any inn;'xil)lc rule
governing the composition of those local boards, and that mat-
ter shall be left to your good judgment. You will realize,
however, that the maintenance of the suppleness and efficiency
of the whole system requires that the least possible departure
be made in tlie constitution of these boards and that consider-
ations arising from local peculiarities should be strong indeed
to induce a change in the normal constitution here indicated.
It would be gratifying also to think that the service re-
quired of members of these boards would be offered without
hope of compensation, but it is limno in mind that the duties
Imposed upon them will be exailinu-, ditlirult, and frequently
dLstressing. If compensation is ntHcssary, the Government
stands ready to make it. Wliere any .service in connection
herewith is rendered gratuitously the Government will be
prompt to express its appreciation.
The next thought in coordinating local organizations under
a central control indicates yourself as chief executive of the
State, functioning, of course, through some appropriate office
tliat will relieve you of detail. The office that suggests itself
instantly to my mind is that of your adjutant general. The
President has the firmest confidence that in the execution of
this law of devotetl sacrifice by the people themselves our
genius for self-government will transcend all prior expressions.
For this reason it is desired to make the point of actual ap-
plication of the law nonmilitary, but as the system cehtralizes
its military object is emphasized, and with the assistance of
such clerical force as may be necessary, your adjutant gen-
eral's office is excellently adaptable to the integration of the
State system with the War Department.
It has thus far been attempted to demonstrate the difficul-
ties of the problem and the plan proposed to obviate them and
to visualize the system which shall result which, in recapitu-
lation, may be stated to be: First, a central bureau in \yasii-
ington ; second, a collection of State and territorial systems
decentralized as far «s possiljle under control of the gov-
ernors; third, county and citj^boards of control; fourth, for
the purpose of registration, a registrar for each voting pre-
cinct and an assistant were necessary.
I have already indicated the necessity of expedition in com-
pleting the registration. It is important to add that the selec-
tion of those who are to go ought to be made swiftly, in order
that as long a time as is consistent with the national interest
may be given them in which to compose their affairs ^and to
make their farewells.
Since even the coordination and preparation of existing
mechanism will consume no title time, this letter is being ad-
dressed to you to apprise you of the plan, to enal)Ie you to
consider it and be prepared immediately upon enactment of
the law to adjust the machinery in your State to this regis-
tration anil to .ucai'iiin' witli tlie national unit. This will sug-
gest to yuu the desirability of .some such proper and necessary
anticipation as a selection of the best method of constituting
your county and city boards and a preparation for promptly
calling these boards into being and apprising them of their
functions. It is intended to inform tlie pul;ilic mind of the
details of the plan in order that all may know the duties to
be required of them.
The War Department is ready to follow a rather expedi-
tious schedule. The President's proclamation will be pub-
lislied throughout the United States on the day of the an-
proval of the bill. It is hoped that, on telegraphic notification
REPORT OF THE PROVOST MARSHAL GENERAL.
of the govenior tlnit the bill has passed, all county and city
boards of I'esistration in tlie United States can be constituted
by the governors within tliree or four days. The necessary
instructions, regulations, and cards for registration must come
from a single Federal source in order that the information
received may be of a uniform character. All arrangements
have been made here to print and forward this material di-
rectly to sheriffs and to mayors of cities of over 30,000 popu-
lation, as .sliown by the census of 1010, in time to have the
distribution complete in the most remote county seat within
six days after the approval of the bill. This distribution will
be only to county seats and we must look to the sheriffs (or
to such officers as you may choose in their stead) to see to
it that the distribution to precincts is complete within eight
days even if, in case of remote precincts, they have to cause
the blanks and instructions to be sent by special messenger.
.Should you constitute boards not including the sherifT, those
brjiirds must procure the blanks from the sheriffs. In order
to accommodate changes tliat may have occurred in the popu-
lation of counties since the last census (upou which we shall
rely in distributing blanks) we shall forward to you a sur-
plus to fill deficiencies in county supplies and your sheriif
should be instructed to telegraph State headquarters in case
of shortage.
The hope is entertained that the whole system may be ready
to proceed to registration within 10 days (or, at most, two
weeks) after enactment of the law, but confidence in this is
reserved until advices /liave been received from the governors
ajilirising of difficulties (if such there be) which have not
been foreseen in this rather hasty survey of the political sys-
tems of the States.
It is of course apparent that the success of this great under-
tal;iiig is dependent entirely* upon the zeal and cooperation of
y-\::tL\ city, and county officials, and of private citizens. It
will rocjuire the very best efforts of everyone concerned In it.
.Such a complete reliance on State organization for the per-
formance of the Federal service has never before been made
in our history, and it is a happy day for the Union when it
c;in be said, as it now can be said, that the very best means
that could possibly be employed for such a necessary and
emergent national task are the political organizations of the
several States.
The response of the governors was, without a .single
exception, nothing less than inspiring. Preparation
for the execution of the registration had been carried
forward with such rapidity in anticipation of enact-
ment of law that, on the day of its approval, the
wiiole .system was practically complete. Preliminary
drafts of the regulations governing registration, lack-
ing only the authorization of the statute itself, had
been distributed to all registration officials. The com-
plete supply of 45,000,000 blanlc forms had been so
thoroughly disseminated that every registration board
was provided with all the necessary paraphernalia.
It is a fact that, save for the necessity of giving ample
publicity and distribution to the President's procl-
amation fixing June 5 as registration day, the regis-
tration could have been as well consummated on May
25 (one week after the bill became a law) as it was
on June 5, the day fixed by the President. In short,
the registration machinery had been completely pro-
vided before the law was enacted, so that all that re-
• mained to do was to make a few minor adjustments
and to await, with some groundless apprehension,
the response of our people to the first considerable
demand of the war.
ORGANIZATIOH OF THE OFFICE OF THE PROVOST MAR-
SHAL GENERAL.
As .soon as its progress in Congress gave form to
the probable trend of the pending selective-service
legislation the undersigned was assigned the task of
preparing the preliminary studies for its execution.
Two officers, then on duty in the Office of the Judge
Advocate General, Capts. Hugh S. Johnson, Cavalry,
and Cassius M. Dowell, Infantry, were assigned to
the specific task of working out the details of tlio gen-
eral plan which was formulated and approved on
April 10. On May 22 the undersigned was formally
designated Provost Marshal General.
On April 2G offices were occupied in the old Land
Oflice Building, and between that date and May 10
six more officers had reported and a tentative office
organization was worked out, with Maj. Johnson as
executive officer in charge of the detail of administra-
tion. Col. Kreger in charge of the department of
quotas and credits, Maj. Dowell in charge of the ap-
pointment division, Capt. Perrin L. Smith as disburs-
ing officer, and Maj. J. B. Scott in charge of the
Correspondence Division. Maj. Johnson and Maj.
Dowell had composed a committee to prepare regis-
tration regulations; Col. Kreger and Maj. Warren
composed a committee to prepare the regulations for
the first draft.
This tentative organization of the office has not
been substantially departed from, although there have
been several changes in personnel and some additions.
Correspondence is now handled by the Executive
Division, which is divided into several sections, ab-
.sorliing the administrati\(' detail of the work.
The provisions of Uu- (;ld i\'j;iilations allowing an
appeal to the President fioui the final decisions of
the district boards on claims for exemption on the
ground of engagement in industry or agricidture have
resulted in the receipt to date of 22,250 appeals.
The records in each of these cases require exhaustive
study and concise briefing for final administrative ac-
tion. Lieut. Col. E. A. Kreger, assisted by Maj. C. B.
Warren, has been in charge of this work. Under
their direction 13,441 cases have been so treated and
have been finally resolved, with 12,435- affirmances and
1,006 reversals.
The congestion of cases resulting from the first
draft required a very large force of examiners.
-Twenty-four Eeserve Corps judge advocates have
been temporarily detailed for this service. The re-
quirements were so great, however, that an appeal
was made for the voluntary assistance of members of
the bar of the District of Columbia, and the following
10
EEPOBT OF THE PEOVOST MABSHAL GENERAL.
members of that bar responded with an unselfish de-
votion that can not pass without commendation :
L. Russell AlUen.
C. G. Alleu.
Ralph P. Baiiisird.
Heury P Blair.
James H. Blount.
Edmund Brady.
Chapin Brown.
W. Clayton Carpenter.
Frederick E. Chapin.
Myer Cohen.
Fred G. Coldren.
G. B. Craighill.
William T. S. Curtis.
Charles Ray Dean.
M. M. Doyle.
Andrew B. Duvall.
John S. Plannery.
Richard A. Ford.
Charles L. Frailey.
Arthur F. Gottliold.
Ilarry R. Gower.
Walter B. Guy.
A. A. Hoehling, jr.
C. Clinton James.
Guy H. Johnson.
Paul E. Johnson.
Eugene A. Jones.
J. Miller Kenyon.
li. L. Korn.
Wharton E Lester.
Jolm P. McMahon.
Benjamin Micou.
W. W. Millan.
Charles F. R. Ogilby.
R. Ross Perry.
Mason N. Richardson.
Chitrles E. Roach.
g?homas E. Robertson.
W. H. Sholes.
John Lewis Smith.
R. E. L. Smith.
Henry' W. Sohon.
Joseph Solomon.
Milton Strasberger.
Robert H. Turner.
Alexander Wolf.
In preparing studies for the new regulations mem-
bers of local and district boards from widely sep-
arated districts, selected with a view to presenting as
many diversities of the problems of the first draft as
possible, were called to Washington for conference,
and all local and district boards were called upon for
a statement showing criticism and recommendations.
Provided with the valuable data thus evoked, Lieut.
Col. Johnson, Maj. Easby-Smith, and Capt. H. C.
Kramer were appointed as a committee and directed
to prepare a revision of the old regulations along the
lines discussed at length in the latter pages of this
report.
Their labors were completed and the new regula-
tions promulgated on November 8. The vast distri-
bution and preparation of forms had already been
begun, and on December 15 the task of classification
was initiated by the boards. It is proceeding
smoothly and without untoward incident.
. A list of the officers who have been on duty in this
office is given in the Appendix.
A proper acknowledgment of the loyal and efficient
service rendered by those who have assisted in the per-
formance of tlie very large task which confronted this
office would require a roll call of all who have been
identified with this work either as officers or in a cleri-
cal capacity; the office force has at all times been loyal
and si)eedily became efficient.
Certain ones have been drawn into such a conspicu-
ous relation to the woik that special acknowledgment
is their due. They include Lieut. Col. Hugh S. John-
son, who has carried so efiiciently the duties of execu-
tive officer which have brouglit him into responsible
contact witli every line of its administration; Lieut.
Col. E. A. Kreger, wlio fornnilated the regulations re-
specting quotas and had charge of the correspondence
relating to the same, and who later became the direct-
ing head of the appeals division of this office which
considered the large number of agricultural and in-
dustrial claims for exemption which had been ap-
pealed to the President from the judgment of the
district boards; Maj. Charles B. Warren, who had
primary responsibility in the formulation of the regu-
lations for the first draft and upon whom and Col.
Kreger fell the duty of coordinating and directing the
work of the appeals division ; Lieut. Col. A. W. Gul-
lion, upon Avhom tlie work of the correspondence
division has fallen so heavily, and who has been the
efficient substitute in the executive office during periods
of time when Col. Johnson was withdrawn therefrom
for other work; Maj. J. H. ^\'igniorc, a con&ijicuous
name in the legal profession, wiiose pai'ticipation in
the work of this office has carried him into all fields
of our work, and who has found time, among other
exacting duties, to organize the statistical division of
the office, and who has supervised the preparation of
the various tables and comments thereon which ap-
pear in this report; Maj. Edwin W. Fnllam, who
has had charge of office organization; and, finally,
Maj. James S. Easby-Smith, who came t« this office
from the presidency of the District Beard for the
District of Cohunbia, and who has rendered most
valuable service both as a member of the committee
which prepared tlie revised regulations under which
the new military and industrial classification of
9,000.000 registrants is proceeding satisfactorily, and
wlio luis since tlien assumed, in responsible portion,
woi-k connecteil witli such classification in the execu-
tive branri) of this office.
Sucli coiiMueiidation as the administration of this
oflifo merits at your hands will be found due, in a
great nu-a.-iure, to Lieut. Col. Johnson, executive officer.
1 1 has raicly happened in our service that an officer
of his ago and experience has been called upon to per-
form sucli responsible duties. In their performance
he lias cliMllengcd and held my attention and, as well,
the allpution of the office force in a very special way,
and tlie opinion of all associated with him is confirma-
tory of my own of the indefatigable zeal and energy
and the great ability* with which he has addressed
himself to his tasks. What I here make of record in
this formal report will serve to bring to your atten-
tion the special commendation of specific tasks per-
formed by Col. Johnson, which I have brought to
your attention from time to time.
IIL
THE REGISTRATION.
The registration is set forth by .States in Appendix
Table 1, and its .several aspects are fully analyzed and
discussed in Part II. It suflices here to say that on
the morning of June 5 a perfectly coordinated'system
REPORT OF THE TEOVOST MARSHAL GENKEAL,
11
whicli, l\v the patriotic and devoted cooperation of
the officials and citizens of the several States, had been
created almost in a fortnight, stood ready to the
task. On the evening of that day, practically the en-
tire male population of the United States between the
ages of 21 and 30 had presented themselves for enroll-
ment for service, and within 48 hours the returns in
the city of Washington were 90 per cent complete. A
-solume that would read as an epic of patriotic inge-
nuity and endeavor could be devoted to the story of
the registration in many of the States. Seemingly in-
surmoinitable difficulties were overcome. The men of
the Nation made their first response to the call of
national need in a unison that removed all doubt of
the solidarity and d6\otion of our people. The event
proved the President's forecast of it.
June 5 is destined to become one of the most sig-
nitic-nt days in American history.
IV.
OEGANIZATION OP THE SYSTEM FOR SELECTION.
Preparation for the registration having been made
before enactment of the law, the fortnight intervening
beforo registration was given over to a study of the
intricacies of the law as it had come from the hands
of Congress, and to a reorganization of the hastily
erected registration sj'stem, for the execution of tlie
overwhelming task of selection.
It had been the intention to utilize the registration
mechanism for the selection and to merge the system
for registration easily into the plan for selection.
Changes inserted in the bill as originally drafted, how-
ever, required considerable adjustments of the regis-
tration system.
The intrinsic idea of the latter system, as it had been
conceived, was to pass complete responsibility for the
execution of the selection on to the States, to vest i;he
governoi's with as much control as possible, and to that
end to hold them responsible for the selection of all
officials who were to be charged with the actual local
administration. The registration boards were selected
in precise accord with this idea. Congress had, how-
ever, inserted provisions, apparently intended to give
statutory effect to the tentative draft of registration
regulations, but actually requiring that selection
boards should be appointed by the President. While
authorizing the President to c&ll \ipon the governors,
and all State oi; rifttional officials or other persons
within n Stale, to perform such duties as he might
tTesignate, under pain of heavy penalties for neglect or
refusal, the terras of the statute required a consider-
able readjustment of the registration system for the
purposes of selection. It was determined at once to
maintain as far as legally possible the pattern of na-
tional supervision and State control, under the original
basic idea of what may (not too pedantically) be
termed a system of "supervised decentralization."
The areas of jurisdiction of the local boards were to
remain practically the same as the jurisdiction of the
registration boards. Local boards were to have origi-
nal jurisdiction of all claims for exemption or dis-
charge except those on the ground of engagement in
industry and agriculture, jurisdiction of which was
vested in the district boards. From the local board
jurisdiction a right of appeal to the district boards
was provided, but the decision of the district board
in all matters within the original jurisdiction of the
local boards was final. From matters within the juris-
diction of the district boards a right of appeal to tlie
President was provided.
The principal question to be decided by the local
boards was that of dependency. The regulations per-
mitted the exemption of any man who had a wife, a
child, mainly dependent upon him for support. This
question of dependency involved circumstances of do-
mestic relation which required the sympathetic consid-
eration of the neighbors of the registrant. The per-
.sonnel of the local boards was therefore to be selected
with reference to their environment rather than with
reference to their professions or callings. In some
States the local officials who had supervised the regis-
tration were selected to continue as local boards; in
others the governor made a complete new .selection.
The district boards Avere to bo created anew, and
the careful selection of their personnel was of para-
mount importance. The view of this office as to their
composition is given in the succeeding pages.
While the President was to exercise his statutory
functions of appointing the selection boards, upon
the governor of each State was imposed the re-
.sponsibility for districting his State; and he was
called upon to nominate the personnel of the local
and district boards, under certain restrictions con-
tained in the following instructions to governors and
a memorandum for the information of Members of
Congress under date of May 26 and June 18 :
Tlie execution of the selective-service law divides itself inti^
two distinct stages — ^first, the registration ; second, the selectinn
and the determination of exemptions. Instructions and regu-
lations which have so far been furnished you lir^ve concerned
themselves solely with the registration.
It was the intention to erect for the r;virpose of registration a
machine which could pass to the c-i:ecution of the second step
with few modifications. For this reason it was prescribed that
there should be a registrc;uion board of three members for each
county and for each group of 30,000 in each city of over 30.000
population. T'.-.e second paragraph of section 4 of the selec-
tive-servica act prescribes a mandatory organization for ex-
emption boards. It is confidently expected that in the large
iTiajority of cases registration boards as created by the various
governors can be continued as exemption boards after appoint-
ment by the President, but reports from many of the States
•indicate variations from the plan thus laid down in registration
regulations. These variations make it Impossible to designate
by a blanket President's order the registration boards as the
12
REPORT OF THE PROVOST MARSHAL GENERAL.
local boards of exemption prescribed in section 4. It is now
desirable for every State to prepare to create a system of local
boards Avhicli sbnll be in precise accord with the requirements
of the second pnragraph of section 4.
Your uominations for this system should be in the hands of
the President on or before June 7 in order that he can appoint
the whole machinery of local boards for the second stage of the
execution of the law. It will be necessary to observe strictly
the following rules : Each city of over 45.000 must be divided
into subdivisions containing approximately 30,000 of the popu-
lation. Each county whose population, exclusive of cities of
o\cr 30,000 population, exceeds 45,000 must be divided into sub-
divisions each containing approximately 30,000 of the popu-
lation of such county. In making these subdivisions care must
be taken not to cross county, city, or registration district lines.
This is necessary to delineate jurisdictional areas and insure
that the cards of any subdivision can be readily segregated to
that subdivision. For each county, for each city of over 30,000,
and for each subdivision in either cities or counties of over
ir.oiio .-i board shall be nominated by the governor, to consist
i^f llnce members, none of whom shall he conue<'ted with the
Military Establishment, to be chosen from among the local
authorities of such subdivision or from other citizens residing
in tlie area or subdivision over which the board to which they
arc nominated shall have jurisdiction. At least one of the
members unist be a physician in A\h()m the governor feels that
he can repose implicit confidence.
In the niajorily of States little or no change will be neces-
sary from thi^ orsTinizntion already erected hy the governor for
the puriiosc of rcgisti.ition, but, in order that complete infor-
mation may be available to the President, he desires to receive
a complete list of the governors' nonjinations from every State
in the Union on or before June 7. This li.st must be in precise
accord with tlip forepning nilos. which are prescribed by stat-
ute and ri-.M)i wIimIi ,1,1 vnri:iti.»n-^ ."ni bo pcj-niitted. The lists
should sliMi' I'l'i llu ;i:iiih' li' iilli.'!- .U^iignntion of each county
or city or siiliili\ i^ioii tlicrcif : scri.iiil, tho names of the persons
nominated by the governors to be appointed by the President as
members of the local boards for each county or city or sub-
division thereof, with a statement of the official position, if
any. held by each of such persons.
The necessity for an expeditious and decentralized selection
of the membership of exemption hoards is necessary for the
following reasons :
First. Our time is limited. The organization of a country
of 100.000.000 people for such a task as oin-s is a colossal un-
dertaking. It cnii bo oxiioiliiiously accomplished in only one
wa.v — deceutrali'/.iition. Tlicre is no need to attempt to draw
the picture of a bureau of appointment in Washington for the
constitution, organization, and control of some four thousand
'icm\ boards, and the confusion, comiilications, and unwieldi-
ness l^'at wotild ensue. Witliout reliable means for informing
ourselves 0^ the character of candidates, without prompt
facility for comMunication. in the face of a necessity to create
•1 lu.iv Fe<lernl machlue with points of contact in every county
Xntiun. we shou>l 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
th<?n, the arrangements were made for the dravving of
the. order numbers at Washington.
The total number of men to be apportioned was
1,152,985. Gross quotas were apportioned to the sev-
eral States and Territories and the District of Co-
Inmbia'^n proportion to the population thereof on Jul}'
1, 1917, as determined by the Bureau of the Census of
the Department of Commerce. To determine the net
quota there was first deducted from the gross quota of
each State, Territory, or District the gross credit due
such State, Territory, or District on account of the
enlisted membership in the National Guard and the
Regular Anny. Tlie difference thus abtained in the
case of each State, Territorj-, or District would then
have been the net quota thereef had it not been for the
fact that in one jurisdiction, the Territory of Hawaii,
the gross credit exceeded the gross queta. This fact
rendered an adjustment necessarj^ That adjustment
was made by distributing to tke ©ther Territories, the
States, and the District of Celumieia, in proportion to
population, the excess of grcss crecLit over gross quota
in the Territory of Havwiii. The resnitiiig difference
in each case constituted the net quota required of the
State, Territory, or District,
5. Apportionment of local quotas. — Pursuant to the
provisions of the regulations governing the appor-
tionment of quotas and credits {in prescribing which
the President had invoked the authority of the statute
to utilize the sen-ices of any or all officers or agents of
the United States and of the several States and Terri-
tories and the District of Columbia in the execution of
the selective-service act) the governors of the several
States and Territories and >the 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
<////////
W/M
NEW MEXICQf
]
NEW YORK
y////////
^//y/M
y///////.
y/yyyyA
W///A
y/z/y/A
W////^
iS^
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH DAKOTA
i
^ N
SI A
OHIO
W////y
'^/Wi
OKLAHOMA
OREGON
]
PENNSYLVANIA
y/////A
y///////
V/////A
w///y,
!]^^H
LLIED ALIEN
EUTRAL.ALl
NEMY ALIEN
LLIED WITH
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
UTAH
VERMONT
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
3
1
]
]
m
m
B
S
ENS
5
ENEMY ALIENS
WYOMING
]
Location of alien registrants, by States.
58
KEPOET OF THE PKOVOST MARSHAL GENEEAL.
2. The second inquiry is, What was the relative
she of this group of exemptions or discharges in the
total of exemptions and discharges? This percent-
age, 5.83 per cent, has already been shown in Table
21, line 4.
3. The local and district boards reports show a
general support given to this group of exemptions and
discliarges, with a tendency (if any changes were
made) to eliminate or restrict some of them.
About one-fifth of the boards recommend that
officers of the United States and the States should not,
as a class, be exempt. A few of these say that only
elective officers should be exempt; a large number
believe that only the more important officers, or those
whose places would be difficult to fill satisfactorily,
should be exempt.
Nearly 40 per cent of the boards recommend that
ministers of religion should not, as a class, be exempt.
The reason most frequently given is that they are
needed at least as much in the Army as at home, and
that their presence would have an excellent effect upon
the mora] tone of the Army. A few boards suggest
that they should be assigned, if they so desire, to non-
combatant service.
Ninety out of 133 district boards recommend that
students of divinity should not, as a class, be exempt.
There appears to be a good deal of feeling on this sub-
ject. Some boards suggest that an Array camp is the
best of training schools for the ministry; a larger
number point out that the influence of divinity stu-
dents in the camps would be excellent. Many say
they see no reason for distinguislung divinity students
from other professional students, and some suggest
that divinity students be treated the same as medical
students.
There is practically no opposition to the exemption
of persons in military or naval service; though there
is some feeling that men of draft age who are likely
to be called at an early date should not be allowed to
take refuge in a noncombatant branch of the service.
The reports indicate considerable dissatisfaction
with the laxness on the part of men who have entered
the military or naval service in notifying the local
boards. By some boards it is recommended that Army
officers certify enlisted men. One suggestion is that a
man who intends to volunteer should be required first
to obtain a card from his local board and then report
back to the board with proof of his actual entry into
the service.
As already pointed out (pp. 41-42), some 85,000 or
more men who enlisted failed to notify their boards of
their new status. Moreover, by the terms of the selec-
tive-service act persons in the military or naval service
on June 5, 1917, were not required to register. These
two circumstances explain the small number of exemp-
tions based on this ground.
There is a strong opinion among the boards against
the dischai-ge of the governmental classes covered by
Eegidations, section 20 a-e. The best proposal is that
these cases should be treated as analogous to those of
occupational grounds of discharge and left to the judg-
ment of the district boards. The boards, however, have
apparently not fully realized that none of these voca-
tions were dischargeable absolutely and entirely as a
class, and that by direction of the President each indi-
vidual case in all of these Federal groups (custom-
house, mail, arsenal, and sundry employees) was
treated on its merits as to the necessity of retaining
the man at his civic post, and no claim for discharge
on those grounds was authorized unless his superior
officer, or the Secretary of the department himself (in
many cases), issued a certificate of necessity.
A large number of boards oppose the discharge of
county and municipal officers as a class. This view is
partly based on the difficulty of establishing a fair
definition which will discharge only those who are
really necessary in the local government.
Similar considerations lead several boards to express
disapproval of the discharge of pilots and mariners
as a class.
B. RELIGIOUS CREED; " CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS."
1. As to the partial discharge authorized by the law
for persons professing a " religious creed opposed to
war in any form" (so-called "religious objectors"),
the total number of such discharges was 3,887. (Table
21, line 5.)
(a) A first inquiry might be: What proportion of
such creed members availed themselves of this claim?
This question can not yet be answered, until time
permits a complete examination of the files of the local
boards.
(&) As to the partial nature of the discharge (leav-
ing them liable to serve only "in some capacity de-
clared by the President to be noncombatant"), it may
be stated that the President has not as yet seen fit to
call for such noncombatant services in any such in-
stances. Nor has he by any Executive order defined,
at the time of preparing this report, the scope of non-
combatant services for such persons.
{c) This ground of discharge, however, has been far
from receiving public support. A very large majority
of the district boards recommend that religious objec-
tors should not be discharged. Evidently the feeling
is widespread that the religious-creed objection is in
many cases not genuine. Furthermore, many boards
express the belief that honest religious objection ought
not to be allowed to deprive the Nation of an able-
bodied defender. Many of the boards, however, which
favor holding religious objectors to military service
express the opinion that those whose objection seems
genuine should be assigned to noncombatant service.
EEPORT OF THE PBOVOST MARSHAL GENERAL.
59
2. The " conscientious objector," so called, has no
recognition in the selective-service law, and is thus
distinct from the religious-creed member.
(a) It was supposed by some that the number of
" conscientious objectors " who Aoukl refuse to appear
if drafted, or to serve if ordered to camp, would be
large — as many as 20,000. In fact, the reports from
cnmp commanders indicate that only 5G1 have dis-
closed themselves by refusal.
The Secretary of War had under consideration, at
the time of preparing this report, a plan of treatment
in the camps which will preserve from impairment the
nece&sary standards of military discipline, without
doing undue violence to the sensibilities of such of
these misguided men as may be sincere in their prin-
ciples.
(h) There is extremely little popular sympathy for
tliis class. Almost unanimously the boards assert that
they are slackers in disguise, and ought to be sent to
the front.
(<•) Some boards treat religious and conscientious
(jbjcctors as one class, and say that, when found to be
honest, they might well be assigned to noncombatant
service. But it should not be forgotten that the two
classes are entirely distinct; — legally, morally, and
practically. They are legally distinct, because the act
of Congress expressly recognizes and gives a legal
status to the one, but wholly ignores the other. Tliey
are morally distinct, because the one is obeying what
he regards as a divine mandate, binding the conscience
of believers, and sanctioned by the settled tradition of
their chui-ch; while the other is merely choosing to
accept the loose and untried speculations of modern
theorists who avow no respect for religious scriptures
and profess no authority over the conscience. They
are practically distinct, because the one inclades an
ascertainable group of individuals, registered in their
sect, definitely fixed on May IS (the date of the pas-
sage of the selective-service act), and not capable of
enlargement at will ; while the other may include any-
one whomsoever who has chosen, after May 18 last,
to make profession, howevei- insincerely, of an opinion
opposed to war; and thus this group, if recognized in
[uactice, would inevitably become an easy and impreg-
nable refuge for an unlimited number of " slackers."
(C) MORAL UNFITNESS.
The selective-service law authorized the President
to exclude or discharge the '' morally deficient." This
was defined by the President's regulation (sec. 21) to
iuchule persons convicted and sentenced for felony in
any court of record; thus conforming to the general
rule forbidding such enlistments (U. S.Eev. Stat., sec.
1118).
1. The total number of such persons, 2,001 (Table
2, line 6), was gratifyingly small.
2. On this subject there is a pronounced difference
of opinion among the boards. A considerable ma-
jority of the boards believe that the morally deficient
should be held for service, (1) because it is not fair to
others to discharge them, and- (2) because tlie disci-
pline of the Army and the opportimity to prove tl>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; <ln,k and \ratch facfurios; cnpp,.r facluries; gold and silver
1 ■ ' ■ ' ' 1 :, 1 Ii ; 'I ; lilato factories;
2CS, 037
123, 992
46, 480
10, 182
3.70
: imatc for 1017 (column 1); and this estimate can only be approx
on appears as too low is that of group S (powder, cartridges,
ie pcrccntaj:c.
^sous set forth in footnote (i) to Tabic 43.
BEPORT OF THE PROVOST MARSHAL GENERAL.
Table 42— Continued.
65
Effect of first draft on industry at large.
{XI) Paper and printing industries.
20. Blank book, envelope, tag, paper-box factories; paper and pulp mills;
printing and publishing houses
(XII) Textile industries.
21. Carpet mills; cotton mills; hemp and jute mills luiii
embroidery mills; linen mills; rope and conl.i ^ i i
and tent factories; silk mills; woolen and \v^ , i - ^
mills
s: lace and
il, awning:,
ilry textile
(XIII) Miscellaneous industries.
Broom and brush factories; button factories; charcoal and coke works;
cigar and tobacco factories; electric light and power plants; electrical
sujjply factories; gas works; oil refineries; rubber factories; straw fac-
tories; other miscellaneous industries
D. Traxsportation
23. Steam railroads ,
24. Telegraph and telephone companies
25. Water transportation; construction and maintenance of streets, roads, sew-
ers, and bridges; electric and street railways; livery stables; truck,
transfer, cab, and hack companies; express companies; Postal Service..
Trai
LND Merchandise in General.
26. Banking and brokerage; insurance; real estate; sundry wholesale and
retail trades; buying and selling of all sorts of articles; any kind of
store or shop; grain elevators; stockyards; warehouses and cold-storage
plants
F. Public Service (Not Elsewhere Classified).
27. Public administration (United States, State, county, city, and township
employees); National Defense (Army and Navy); marshals, sheriffs,
policemen, watchmen
G. Professional Service.
Actors, professional showmen, etc.; artists, sculptors, and teachers of art;
clergymen; officials of lodges; religious and charity workers; legal pro-
fession; literary professions (journalists, etc.); dentists; physicians
and surgeons; veterinary surgeons; musicians and teachers of music;
scientiiic professions; teachers, professors in colleges, etc.; other pro-
fessional pursuits; students
H. Domestic and Manual Service in General.
29. Barbers and hairdressers; bartenders; cooks; hotel keepers and managers;
/ janitors, porters; restaurant, cafi5, and lunch-room keepers; saloon
keepers: servants; waiters; clerks; laundries; other occupations
30. Laborers fin general)
Total indus-
trial popu-
lation, 1917.
1, 236, 867
297, 067
4, 208, 862
4, 0.53, 385
101, 750
977, 853
1,277,213
30, 711
85, 063
20, 128
119,448
297, 348
403, 649
Total accepted for service.
78, 221
114, 955
L67
2.67
b(i
THE PKOVOST MARSHAL GENERAL.
1. This table shows, in the fii-st place, that the fer-
centage in the several industrial groups varied widely.
The causes for this are various and not accurately
ascertainable.
One cause is the difference in the size of the 21-30
age group in the different industries. For example,
the census of 1910 shows, in agriculture, in 100 males
of age 21 upward, 62 of age 21-44 as against 38 of age
45 upward, but in oil and gas wells SO of age 21-44 as
against 20 of age 45 upward ; and this explains in part
why the percentage taken by the draft (age 21-30)
was larger for the latter than for the fonner industry.
Another cause is the localization of industries in
connection with the size of the net quota. For ex-
ample, if in a certain region most of the draftable
persons were in the oil and gas industry, and in an-
other region most were in agriculture, but the quota
of the former region had been relatively reduced by
large credits for enlistments, the effect of the draft on
the two industries would, in appearance, be relatively
less in the former than in the latter industry.
Two other obvious causes ai'e the differences in the
numbers of exempt aliens and of nonliable females in
the several industries.
Further study will doubtless reveal other explana-
tory causes.
2. It appears, secondly, that, although in no indus-
trial group was the inroad absolutely large in quantity,
the groups experiencing the greatest inroads were oil
and gas wells, powder and cartridge, etc., factories,
steel mills, etc., and shipbuilding.
The groups experiencing the smallest inroads were
agriculture, clothing, leather, liquor and beverage,
l^aper, textiles, trade and merchandise, and profes-
sional classes.
Is this result a desirable one, in view of the needs for
war preparation and for the maintenance of national
welfare during the emergency? This question intro-
duces us to a problem of unusual and pressing impor-
tance, viz., the problem of using the selective-service
system so as to distribute the contingents contributed
to the Army among the several industries in the wisest
manner. This problem is discussed in Part I.
It is here enough to point out, with reference to the
need of measures in future for protecting specific nec-
essary industries from injurious inroads, that the
above mass figures can be of little direct service, first,
because they do not exhibit in sufficient detail the
smaller branches of these groups, such branches differ-
ing Avidely in their relative necessity; and, secondly,
because they do not exhibit the relative differences be-
tween individuals within a given group or industry,
such differences in skill, responsibility, and replace-
ableness being of vital consequence in any effective
scheme of industrial readjustment.
(Ill) INDUSTRIAL REGISTRANTS AVAILABLE FOR FUTURE
DRAFTS.
The third and last inquiry is : For the several indus-
trial groups, what numbers of registrants, draftable
under the present law, remain available for future
drafts? The figures are :
Total
registrants.
Registrants stUl available for draft.
Industrial registrants still available.
Not called.
Called but discharged
Maximum total available.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
A. Agriculture, Forestry, and Animal Husbandry.
1. Agriculture (farDiing; truck gardening; fruit raising.
Kumier.
2, 439, 246
78, 241
46,646
Number.
1, 656, 743
53, 734
31, 004
Per cent.
67.92
68.67
66.46
Number.
576, 772
16, 523
11,072
Per cent.
23.65
21.12
23.74
Number.
2, 233, 515
70, 257
42, 076
Per cent.
9L57
89.79
3. Animal husbandry' (fishing; cattle raising; sheep
90.20
B. Mines, Quarries, and Wells.
225, 109
92,061
33, 040
151,000
56, 508
22, 430
67.08
61.3$'
67.89
25, 176
7,584
24.61
27.34
22.95
206, 399
81. 684
30, 014
9L69
5. Other mines (copper mines; gold and silver mines;
iron mines; lead and zinc nunes); quarries; salt
G. Oil wells and gas wells
90.84
C. Manufacturing Industries.
(I) Building industries.
7. House contractors; carpenters; blacksmiths; machin-
ists; electricians; painters; plasterers; plumbers, etc.
700, 790
468, 955
66.92
173, 865
24.81
642, 820
9L73
KEPOKT OF THE PKOVOST MARSHAL GENERAL.
Table 43 — Continued.
67
Total
registrants.
Registrants still available for draft.
Industrial registrants still available.
Not called.
Called but discharged
Maximum total available.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(//) Chemicalindustries.
8. Powder, cartridge, dynamite, fuse, and fireworks
factories
Number.
25, 999
24, 946
Xumber.
16, 307
IC, 960
Per cent.
62.72
67.99
Number.
7,382
6,060
2a39
24. 29
Number.
23, 689
23, 020
Per cent.
91. 11
9. Fertilizer factories; paint factories, soap factories,
other chemical factories
92. 28
(Ill) Clay, glass, and stone industries.
10. Brick, tile, and terra-cotta factories; glass factories;
lime, cement, and gypsum factories;. marble and
stone yards ; potteries
74 580
49, 652
66.58
18, 900
25.35
68, 558
91.93
(IF) Clothing industries.
11. Clothing factories; glove factories; hat factories;
shirt, collar, and cuff factories
114, 687
69, 735
60.80
37, 582
32.77
107, 317
93.57
( 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
houses; sugar factories and refineries; other food
factories .■
160, 709
109, 780
68.31
39, 242
24.42
149, 022
92.73
( VI) Iron and steel industries.
13. Blast furnaces; steel rolling mills; iron foundries; mil-
itary weapons factories
241,145
35, 949
310, 318
148,711
24, 039
207 458
61.67
66.87
66.85
70, 366
9,282
78, 003
29.18
25. 14
219,077
33, 321
285, 461
90.85
14. Shipbuiidino' and boat building
92.69
15. Agricul turaf implement factories; automobile facto-
ries; wagon and carriage factories; car and railroad
shops; other iron and steel factories
91.99
( VII) Leather industries.
16 . Harness and saddle factories ; shoe f ac tories ; tanneries ;
trunk factories
81,575
50, 912
69.76
19, 600
24.03
70,512
93.79
^( VIII) Liquor and beverage industries.
17. Breweries; other liquor and beverage factories
17, 669
11,917
67.45
4,280
24.22
16, 197
91.07
{IX) Lumber and furniture industries.
18. Box factories (wood); furniture factories; piano and
organ factories; saw and planing mills; other wood-
working factories
145, 379
102, 235
70.32
31, 686
21.79
133.921
92.11
(X) Metal industries {except iron and steel).
19. Brass mills; clock and watch factories; copper fac-
tories; gold and silver factories; jewelry factories;
lead and zinc factories; tin-plate factories; tinware
and enamel ware factories ; other metal factories
123, 992
77, 512
62.51
36, 298
29.27
113, 810
91.78
(XI) Paper and printing industries.
20. Blank book, envelope, tag, paper bag, and paper box
factories; paper and pulp mills; printing and pub-
lishing houses
101, 750
71, 039
69.82
23, 966
23.55
95, 005
93.37
(XII) Textile industries.
21. Carpet mills; cotton mills; hemp and jute mills; knit-
ting mills; lace and embroidery mills; linen mills;
rope and cordage factories; sail, awning, and tent
factories; silk mills; woolen and worsted mills;
sundry textile mills
155, 938
103, 47G
66. 36
42, 629
27.33
146, 105
93. 69
68
EEPOET OF THE PHOVOBT MARSHAL GENEEAL.
TabijE 43— Continued.
Industrial registrants still available.
(XIII) Miscellaneous industries.
22. Broom and brush factories; button factories; charcoal
and coke works; ci.sar and tobacco factories; elec-
tric light and power plants; electrical supply fac-
tories; gas work.s; oil refineries; rubber factories;
straw factories; other miscellaneous industries
D. Transportation.
23. Steam railroads
'24. Telegraph and telephone companies
25. Water transportation; construction and maintenance
of streets, roads, sewers, and bridges; electric and
street railways; livery stables; trudk, transfer,
cab, and hack companies; express companies;
postal service
E. Trade and Merchandise in General.
26. Banking and brokerage; instrrance; real estate;
sundry wholesale and retail trades; buying and
selling of all sorts of articles; any kind of store or
shop; grain elevators; stock yards; warehouses and
cold-storage plants
F. PoBLic Service (Not Elsewhere Classified).
27. Public administration (United States, State,- county,
city, and township employees); national defense
(Army and Navy); marsh^, Aeriffs; policemen;
watchmen
G. Professional Service.
Actors, professional showmen, etc.; artists, sculptors,
and teachers of art; clergjonen; officials of lodges;
rehgiousand charity workers; legal profession; lit-
erary professions (journahsts, etc.); dentists, phy-
sicians and surgeons; veterinary surgeons; musi-
cians and teachers of music; scientific professions;
teachers, professors in colleges, etc.; other profes-
sional pursuits; students
II. Domestic and Manual Service in 'General.
29. Barbers and hairdressers; bartenders; cooks; hotel
keepers and managers; janitors; porters; restau-
rant, cafe, and lunchroom keepers; saloon keepers;
servants; waiters; clerks; laundries; other occupa-
tions
30. Laborers (in general)
335, 053
977, 853
1, 277, 213
Not called.
(2)
5 Still available for draft.
Called but discharged Maximuin total available.
(3)
6S0, 505
873, 564
63, 506
15, 173
22 93
22.90
255. 461
01, 164
92.22
92.50
3,649
22.41
22.60
899, 632
1, 162, 258
92.00
9L00
Bys
I be reached.
r discharge r
course certain that not all registrants discharged under" the first draft will be practically available in later drafts.
It may rather be assumed that the largest portion of the total men discharged under the first draft will not be available on future drafts. The only certain basis lor the
Mtimate of available men in the several industrial groups, therefore, is to add a small, unknown, and variable percentage to the totals shown in column 2, Table 43, above.
What the variation of that percentage should be in the respective industrial groups is not practicable to estimate at this time.
(6) A second adjustment for Table 4.3 must be made, Deoauso column 3 represents the men not certified for service by the local boards, and this number could not be
•ccurately known at the time of compiling the data (Nov. 12), because (1) many cases of claim for exemption or discharge, still pending on appeal at that time, would be
tooided in favor of the claimants, and (2) the lists of certified men ware subject to some depletion bv rejections or nonappearances at camp; and both of these causes would
Increase column 3. No apportionment of it to the specific industrial groups could be worth estimatmg .
BEPORT OP THE PKOVOST MAESHAL GENEKAL.
1. This table shows that the percentages of men of
draftable age still available in the respective indus-
tries vary substantially in column 2, ranging between
60.8 per cent and 70.32 per cent, but vary less notably
in column 4, ranging between 88.72 per cent and 93.79
per cent.
In column 2 (which is the safer basis for judgment,
for the reasons mentioned in footnote (a) ) the high-
est percentages available are found in leather, tex-
tiles, and clothing; the lowest, in forestry and sundry
mines. In column 4 the highest percentages are found
in lumber, paper, leather, domestic and manual service,
and telegraphs and telephones; the lowest in clothing
and sundry mines.
The causes for these variances are more or less the
same as the causes already set forth for table 42, viz,
the several circumstances that differ in the composi-
tion of each industrial group — locality, age, sex, alien-
age, etc.
But it sliould be remembered that the variations are
in little or no degree attributable to the administration
of the selective-service law by the district boards in
granting discharges in "necessary industries." Ob-
viously, the judgment of the boards as to " necessary
industries" is not reflected in the high and low per-
centage industries above mentioned. The tenor of the
boards' judgment on that subject must rather be
sought in the figures of Table 39 (and appendix. Table
39A) as to the percentage of discharges granted on
claims made in the several industrial groups. The
district boards dealt only with those who made claims,
and had no control over the mass of registrants at
large or the mass of registrants called and discharged
by the local boards. The judgment of the district
boards as to " necessary industries," as shown in Table
39A, is in direct harmony with the obvious needs of
the present emergency. But the results here shown
for Table 43 have no such obvious relation.
This Table 43, it must be remembered, shows only the
effect of the draft on the registrants (ages 21 to 30)
in each industrial group, and not on the total popula-
tion in the group. Naturally, therefore, no identity
could be expected in the percentage for the same group
in the two tables. This explains why the industrial
groups most notably affected as a whole (in Table
42) appear to be oil and gas, powder and cartridges,
steel mills, and shipbuilding; while the industrial
groups most notably affected in their age 21 to
30 registrants (Table 43) appear to be forestry and
sundry mines; no one industry appearing in both of
these lists.
The further development of other important and in-
teresting inferences and explanations to be drawn
from a comparison of these several tables of results
would require prolonged analysis and study.
2. A final observation on Table 43 is that these jnass
numbers in themselves do not assist much for future
drafts in determining the measures of industrial re-
adjustment or conscription to be used in the emer-
gency, first, because they do not locate the masses geo-
graphically (though the data not here printed would
serve for that) ; secondly, because they do not reach
and locate the individuals; and thirdly, because they
do not differentiate the relative skill or usefulness of
the individual within each industry. Nothing short
of a central industrial card file will do this.
E. H. CROWDER,
Provost Marshal General.
APPENDIX TABLES
APPENDIX TABLE A.
PROPORTION OF QUOTA TO STATUTORY ENLISTMENT CREDITS.
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 Vii'ginia v»
Wisconsin f-
Wyoming
Alaska
Hawaii
Porto Rico
1, 152, 985
cm
740
533
G91
382
207
896
557
971
471
452
586
344
C57
248
055
040
125
592
488
566
188
522
450
721
274
13
,397
624
35.92
22.28
40.99
33.76
■51.31
41.48
53.05
75. 34
37.37
32.43
52.51
34.52
41.40
49.76
63. 64
35. 56
26. 33
74.09
49.63
52.07
30.88
31.51
34.09
47.20
24.30
40.94
26. 62
72.57
41.82
40.37
43.26
31.81
31.
41.49
21.78
90.11
37.90
64.60
33.27
60.18
34.
36.34
51.89
67.46
35.22
42.
38.53
54.16
69.62
18.30
182. 97
687, 000
13, 612
3,472
10, 267
23, 060
4,753
10, 977
1,202
929
6,325
18,337
2,287
51, 653
17, 510
12, 749
6,439
14, 236
13, 582
1,821
7,096
20, 586
30, 291
17, 778
10, 801
18, 660
7,872
8, 185
1,051
1,204
20, 665
2,292
69, 241
15, 974
5,272
38, 773
15, 564
717
60, 859
2,211
10, 081
2,717
14, 528
30, 545
2,370
1,049
13, 795
7,296
9,101
12, 876
810
696
12, 833
APPENDIX TABLE B.
PROPORTION OF QUOTA TO ACTUAL ENLISTMENTS.
Gross quota.
Total onlist-
ments.i
Eatio to gross
quota.
Cross quota.
Total enlist-
Ratio to gross
quota.
United States
1, 136, 392
732, 6S7
64.47
10, 423
13, 900
1,435
4,419
35, 623
3, 856
122, 424
23, 486
7,737
66,474
19, 943
7, 387
98,277
6,277
15, 147
G, 854
22, 158
48, 116
4,945
3, 243
21, 354
12, 768
14, 848
28, 199
2,683
6, 425
11,493
855
4,165
20, 902
2,207
81,595
9,241
3,794
41,971
8,959
11, 660
63, 621
5,998
6, 267
5, 627
11,899
28, 176
5,562
2,794
9,883
13, 097
7,848
18,456
2,578
Alabama
21,300
4,478
17,452
34, 907
9,797
18, 817
3,' 796
10, 129
27, 209
4,833
79, 094
29,971
25, 465
17, 795
22, 152
18,481
7,076
14, 139
43, 109
43, 936
26, 021
16, 429
35, 461
10, 831
1,693
9,204
24, 379
8,704
11, 696
1,970
4,130
5, 858
13, 472
4,017
45, 264
22, 360
19, 994
14,377
11, 394
7,873
7,177
10, 992
36, 296
23, 686
17, 273
0,783
28, 191
50.84
37.80
52.73
G9.S3
88.84
62.15
76. 68
108. 79
57.83
49.51
83.11
57.22
74.60
78.51
80.79
5L43
42.59
101. 42
77.74
84.19
53.68
66.38
4L28
79.49
Nevada
59 53
94 23
New Mexico
Colorado
New York
66 64
North Carolina
39 34
District of Columbia
Ohio
63 13
Florida
Oklahoma
34 92
Idaho
64 73
Illinois
Rhode Island
95 55
Indiana
31 37
Kentucky .
58 55
Utah
Maine
Maryland
Viro-inia
36 28
Minnesota
65 44
96.08
Missouri
' This column includes the entire volunteer contribution or each State to the military service, namely, the National Guard and all enlistments in the Army, Nary;
and Marine Corps, Irom the declaration ol war to Dec. 16. It does not include, however, the Officers' Reserve Corps or Naval Reserves, of which the figures at this time
could not bo obtained.
74
APPENDIX TABLE C.
PER CAPITA COST OF SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM.
Alabama.
Arizona. .
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia. . .
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky (estimated).
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Mississippi.
Missouri
Montana...
Nebraska. . .
New Hampshire
New Jersey (estimated).
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
Unclassified
$5,211,<
9, 586, 508
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
121, 598
362, 825
374, 317
222, 698
139, 321
297, 456
118,278
12, 090
37, 519
304, 208
33, 497
1, 009, 345
197, 481
65, 963
554, 709
170, 956
63, 319
815, 973
53, 589
128, 019
188! 946
409, 743
44, 158
27, 244
181, 526
110, 167
125, 846
244, 884
22, 896
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
12o! 207
135, 341
63, 187
31, 205
81, 183
28,441
"b, 474
6,740
113, 057
10, 491
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
$L(
2.56
L18
1.-72
1.44
L84
.69
2.55
2.06
2! 07
100
1.55
1.22
L28
L27
L82
1.35
3.38
2.43
1.71
2.13
L53
1.78
L99
1.71
1.76
2.28
2.16
.84
2.51
2.09
2.12
.77
1.39
.62
2.35
1.46
L58
2^59
1.39
1.31
3.32
2.47
2.07
L89
2.24
2.98
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, 654
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
8,234
62, 037
25, 026
1,400
101, 626
3,044
14, 804
3,736
15, 909
50, 108
4,239
1,414
18, 388
11,095
12, 684
19, 820
1,367
42, 744
14. <
7.12
4.22
6.72
4.41
5.78
2.39
19.00
9.02
3.70
7.83
2.85
4.13
3.57
4.58
3.36
4.56
2.71
11.18
7.02
6.08
6.36
4.00
3.66
8.30
3.77
6.24
8.04
8.49
L83
4.51
1.57
4.86
4.33
13.09
4.18
4.56
8.94
3.88
3.85
13.18
6.33
6.87
3.87
687, 000
13, 612
3,472
10, 267
23,060
4,753
10, 977
1,202
929
6,325
18, 337
2,287
51, 6.53
17, 510
12, 749
6,439
14, 236
13, 582
1,821
7,096
20, 586
30, 291
17, 778
10, 801
18, 660
7,872
8,185
1,051
1,204
20, 665
2,292
69, 241
15, 974
5,272
is! 564
717
60, 859
2,211
10,081
2,717
14, 528
30, 545
2,370
1,049
13, 795
7,296
9,101
12, 876
$7.59
9.83
7.53
7.59
8.45
9.51
4.41
15.86
9.24
6.75
8.02
4.06
6.86
5.32
4.36
4.96
7.02
3.94
17.81
11.53
9.97
9.50
5.44
5.15
8.67
6.34
5.17
1L90
12.11
4.60
11.53
11.60
8.42
2.86
7.22
2.53
9.50
7.23
18.02
6.15
6.27
9.80
6.36
6.89
17.79
8.45
10.45
6.78
10.48
10.07
1 No estimate ot outstanding expenditures.
' Expense borne entirely by the State.
APPENDIX TABLE D.
CLASSIFIED EXPENSES OF FIRST DRAFT FOR THE SEVERAL STATES.
labama
rizona
rkansas
ilif ornia
)lorado
mnecticut
elaware
istrict of Columbia .
lorida
3orgia
linois..
idiana.
iwa
entucky (estimated).
juisiana
aryland
assar-luisetts.
outaua
ebraska
evada '
ew Hampshire
ew Jersey (estimated).
ew Mexico
ew York
orth Carolina
orth Dakota
bio
klahoma
regon
snnsylvania
hode Island
)uth Carolina
)uth Dakota
1133, 860. 88
26, 160. 44
77, 927. 81
194, 799. 94
45,211.67
48, 470. 64
19, 062. 28
8, 588. 46
42, 694. 00
147, 054. 78
9, 290. 52
3.54, 439. 85
93, 265. 00
55, 55G. 49
31, 963. 00
100, 000. 00
53, 574. 18
32, 427. 04
81, 800. 74
205, 284. 08
287, 863. 45
96, 800. 00
55, 660. 63
161, 792. 51
49, 914. 87
42,335.65
$78, 128. 50
3, 582, 00
44, 185. 26
76, 221. 00
13, 055. 23
6, 037. 50
6, 108. 00
3, 336. 00
23, 965. 00
64, 237. 83
3, 867. 50
171, 636. 25
55, 662. 00
29, 498. 63
9, 964. 00
56, 673. 50
24, 038. 50
12, 267. 15
46, 866. 5(5
97, 370. 50
107, 542. 75
43, 900. 00
30, 763. 00
99, 206. 70
11, 521. 00
24, 665. 26
$49, 464. 07
18, 545. 41
27, 477. 61
87,841.09
24, 570. 95
32, 360. 51
8, 018. 38
5, 137. 46
14, 279. 00
28, 367. 18
3, 265. 32
127, 256. 28
28, 146. 00
20, 435. 86
16, 610. 00
18, 395. 04
22, 979. 92
12, 117. 46
20, 290. 84
82,247.46
127, 601. 38
29, 800. 00
17, 786. 50
49, 323. 87
22, 389. 29
13, 816. 35
11,713.91
1, 865. 53
613. 00
8, 864. 70
571.00
$844. 00
204.00
149. 20
3,440.00
955.24
11, 633. 98
2, 033. 00
1, 580. 25
1, 288. 30
349. 40
395. 10
1, 171. 60
3, 104. 20
5, 529. 50
1, 676. 00
51.25
1, 298. 98
2, 114. 37
44.00
220. 52
2, 735. 00
430. 00
45.00
12.50
7, 793. 09
534.
414. 64
4,575.43
1, 148. 90
319. 26
4, 535. 94
4,800.00
1, 586! 28
2, 733. 92
658.00
848. 05
337. 00
1, 051. 21
878. 00
249. 73
1, 910. 20
4, 977. 39
2, 870. 15
9,300.00
200.00
2, 013. 21
676. 00
155. 76
$4, 594. 51
1, 963. 50
2, 845. 52
17, 503. 15
5, 582. 27
9, 405. 70
2, 218. 84
115. 00
2, 344. 00
1, 201. 92
6.59. ,52
32,221 74
7, 323. 00
1, 729. 79
2, 226. 00
2, 811. 05
4,913.72
2, 775. 58
4,426.19
14, 367. 49
21, 880. 68
2, 604. 93
9, 662. 45
3, 594. 66
2, 719. 37
$364. 49
i,' 678.' 62
'i,"432.'22
'761.22
51, 802. 50
186. 70
1, 783. 54
57.00
1, 242. 79
91.00
19, 780. 90
46. 59
6, 986. 51
2,897.78
17, 902. 95
9,000.00
5.70
" '9," 666. 66
320.91
3xas
tah
Brmont
irginia
asMngton...
est Vii-ginia.
isconsin
14, 581. 70
95, 000. 00
26, 428. 79
803, 234. 29
134, 542. 88
15, 094. 45
280, 148. 00
39,475.60
0, 809. 86
440, 239. 57
39, 860. 68
61, 968. 76
17, 023. 45
142, 312. 52
194, 320. 49
16, 321. 57
18, 657. 74
116, 530. 57
76, 268. 28
61, 740. 33
134, 948. 50
8, 154. 74
500.00
7, 919. 00
16, 710. 00
10, 644. 96
304, 807. 78
73, 089. 00
6, HI. 99
115, 624. 00
3, 716. 00
1,412.50
240, 509. 02
9, 358. 76
28, 221. 00
11, 150. 52
84, 541. 50
111, 548. 85
5, 893. 75
12, 206. 24
73, 832. 32
28, 507. 32
22, 775. 70
69, 517. 25
2, 669. 00
4, 925. 79
49, lOS. 74
10, 600. 00
358, 966. 31
44, 838. 58
7,876.57
131, 721. 00
26, 792. 67
3, 847. 04
134, 509. 62
25, 489. 65
26, 762. 30
4, 117. 43
45, 680. 30
68, 353. 33
8, 008. 44
4, 654. 38
31, 797. 90
38, 823. 14
32, 095. 14
49, 718. 06
3, 647. 14
258. 40
1, 123. 00
16, 997. 26
3, 001, 40
12.40
17, 976. 15
980. 30
2, 695. 50
2, 665. 45
104. 90
513. 40
436. 02
3, 765. 55
7, 395. 24
1, 546. 44
451. 78
3, 010. 00
1, 354. 59
271.40
6, 494. 90
318. 10
1,083.67
1, 263. 48
1, 651. 86
808. 17
789. 87
43.00
14.50
5, 637. 31
1. 199. 63
2, 043. 00
362. 85
100.00
3, 704. 45
038. 29
851. 58
130. 40
998. 50
1, 818. 02
102. 00
874.00
1, Ois! 87
830. 68
1, 126. 27
1, 545. 37
3, 282. 03
446.58
702. 34
491.50
929. 67
388. 84
64.00
984.34
9, 641. 89
1, 403. 78
47, 070. 05
10, 867. 83
573. 36
20,011.00
4, 599. 71
S20. 67
36,418.31
4, 055. 88
4,069.91
355. 62
6, 744. 86
.8, 828. 00
1, 203. 33
1, 283. 72
5, 178. 76
5,550.60
3,567.71
11, 023. 45
500. 33
17, 937. 35
'62,' 366.' 34
7, 739. 00
2, 649. 78
345. 65
627. 12
298. 67
219. 28
'4,'i88.'57
895. 45
337. 04
) disbursements from Federal funds.
APPENDIX TABLE E.
PROVOST MAKSHAL GENERAL'S OFFICE, EXPENSES
TO NOV. 30, 1917.
Salaries, employees $42, 699. 21
Traveling expense 682. 76
Per diem cost (lodging, meals, etc.) 506.80
Livery and drayage 34,287.90
Salaries, local and district board members ordered
to Washington .: 354. 00
One-half of stationei-y and office supplies' account,
$28,935.20 14, 467. 60
Printing, forms, etc 9, 144. 70
Miscellaneous .- 30, 686. 39
Total 132, 829. 30
APPENBIX TABLE P.
COST OF RECRUITING FOR 1017 (9 MONTHS).
Rent of stations
Lodgings
Heat and light, water, stationery, car tickets,
furniture, toilet articles
lee
Laundry work
Laundry materials
Telephones
Baths
Drayage
Reniovul of ashes and garbage
Drinking water
Printing
Advertising
Bill p.jsting
Subsistence :
Recruiting parties
Applicants for enlistment
Commutation of quarters for officers on duty at
recruiting stations
Pay of enlisted men of recruiting parties
Difference between active and retired pay of re
tired officers on recruiting duty
Medical and surgical attendance
Examining and vaccinating applicants
Transpiirtation of recruiting parties
Mileage of officers on recruiting duty
Total 1, 110, 949. 52
$91, 537. 75
94, 555. 11
48, 508. 71
350. 62
3, 094. 13
151. 74
3, 060. 94
1, 305. 17
2, 042. 66
96.03
65.70
2, 668. 58
11, 133. 01
38, 042. 09
176, 839. 83
101, 622. 07
35, 739. 00
262, 568. 00
24, 093. 90
35, 330. 47
5, 204. 62
60, 466. 37
111, 813. OS-
APPENDIX TABLE G.
THE ADJUTANT GENERAL'S STATEMENT (NOV. 17, 1917)
OF COST OF RECRUITING IN 1914 AND 1915.
1. Extracting from the expenses of the recruiting service for
the fiscal years 1914 and 1915, as compared in the office of the
Quartermaster General the items of such expenses that appear
to have been incurred by the recruiting service in procuring
recruits for the Army and assembling them at recruiting sta-
tions, it appears that tJie total expenses for those years are
$S03,40S..52 and $693,432.20, respectively. The items of ex-
penses considered in tt»is computation are as follows:
1914. 1P15.
Nonpersonal services $234,445.07 $178,084.57
Supplies and advertising 105,610.95 105,428.30
Commutation of rations 30,82.5.63 36,86.5.54
Toilet articles 413.88 179.15
Mileage 72,641.01 ' 53,625.79
Commutation of quarters for
officers 33, 857. 20 26, 716. 80
Difference between active and
retired pay of officers 28, 376. 42 25, 187. 78
Pay of enlisted men 240, 606. 45 201, 412. 80
Clothing for parties 30, 026. 50 28, 565. 00
Medical and surgical attendance- 5, 703. 06 5, 552. 80
Examining and vaccinating ap-
plicants 349. 20 419. 94
Transportation of recruiting
parties 20, 5-53. 15 30, 793. 73
Total 803, 408. 52 693. 432. 20
2. The number of applicants accepted at general recruiting
stations within the year specified were 41,210 and 45,111. re-
spectively. The number of those applicants actually enlisted
within these years were 32,828 and 36,222, respectively. It
appears therefore that the per capita cost or tlie unit cost of
applicants accepted at recruiting stations for the years 1914
and 1915 were $19.49 and $15.37, re-spectively, and that the
per capita or unit cost of the applicants actually enlisted
within those years were $24.48 and $19.14, respectively.
(Signed) H. P. McCain,
The Adjutant General.
APPENDIX TABLE H.
POPULATION AND REGISTRATION.
State.
Estimated
population,
1917.
Total
registrants,
age 21 to 30.
State.
Estimated
population,
1917.
Total
registrants,
age 21 to 30.
1, 946, 536
409, 203
1, 594, 835
3, 189, 998
895, 336
1, 719, 623
234, 710
346, 856
925, 641
2, 486, 544
441, 684
7, 227, 952
2, 738, 893
2, 327, 079
1, 626, 226
2, 024, 353
1, 688, 862
646, 588
1, 292, 091
3, 939, 561
4, 015, 053
i; 50i; 345
3, 240, 679
952, 478
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
121, 598
362, 825
374, 317
222, 698
139, 321
297, 456
Nebraska
1, 270, 301
131, 232
403, 884
3, 255, 407
352, 392
11, 187, 798
2, 146, 266
706, 992
6, 074, 771
1, 822, 470
675, 092
8, 981, 082
573, 583
1, 384, 203
626, 359
2, 024, 893
4, 397, 097
451, 932
296, 426
1, 951, 521
1, 166, 855
1, 356, 907
2, 576, 931
245, 226
118, 27S
12, 090
37, 519
304, 208
Colorado
33, 497
New York
1 009 345
197, 481
District of Columbia
North Dakota . ... ....
65, 963
Florida
Ohio
554, 709
170, 956
Oregon
63, 319
815, 973
53, 589
128, 019
South Dakota
57, 899
188, 946
409, 743
Maine
Utah
44, 158
27, 244
Virginia
181, 526
110, 167
Miniipsota ...
125, 846
244, 884
APPENDIX TABLE I.
STATE ALLOTMENTS OF FEDERAL APPROPRIATIONS AND EXPENDITURES THEREUNDER.
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
California ,
Colorado
Connecticut ,
Delaware ,
District of Columbia.
Florida ,
Georgia ,
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Massachusetts.
Michigan ,
Mi.ssissippi.
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
Alaska
Hawaii
Porto Rico
Disbursing officer, Provost
Marshal General
Total
Balance on hand
Transfer to Printing Office.
December allotments
Grand total appropria-
tions
i^^r- ^^^^
$50, 000. 00
15, 000. 00
84, 930. 00
105, 000. 00
35, 000. 00
14, 500. 00
12, 421. 75
2, 000. 00
20, 152. 00
153, C13. 38
10, 000. 00
75, 000. 00
90, 000. 00
25, 000. 00
19, 990. 00
20, 000. 00
30, 048. 00
19, 299. 75
39, 900. 00
129, 979. 73
140, 000. 00
25, 000. 00
10, 000. 00
30, 000. 00
10, 000. 00
15, 000. 00
1, 000. 00
3, 700. 00
30, 000. 00
14, 000. 00
421, 619. 05
74, 396. 65
6, 000. 00
100, 000. 00
30, 000. 00
4,-261. 76
60, 000. 00
30, 900. 00
20, 000. 00
10, 000. 00
80, 000. 00
97, 015. 00
G, 125. 00
8, 500. 00
110, 000. 00
45, 000. 00
23, 347. 56
72, 228. 09
7, 000. 00
10, 000. 00
2, 549, 21
10, 000. 00
114,999.50
2, 574, 476. 43
83, 936. 57
$40, 000, 00
15, 000. 00
34, 000. 00
100, 000. 00
10, 000. 00
30, 000. 00
10, 596. 00
8, 500. 00
20, 000. 00
250, 000. 00
35, 138. 00
10, 000. 00
25, 000. 00
25, 000. 00
8, 000. 00
35, 000. 00
150, 000. 00
150, 000. 00
47, 000. 00
20, 000. 00
CO, 000. 00
35, 000. 00
15, 000. 00
6, 628. 00
55, 000. 00
11, 000. 00
225, 000. 00
80, 000. 00
180, 000. 00
20, 000. 00
10, 000. 00
180, 000. 00
14, 000. 00
30, 000. 00
55,000.00
700, 000. 00
8, 250. 00
5, 000. 00
35, 000. 00
25, 000. 00
80, 000. 00
5, 000. 00
7,000.00
5, 000. 00
200,000.00
2, 570, 112. 00
231, 326. 88
368, 000. 00
830, 561. 12
2,658,413.00 4,000,000.00 6,658,413.00
Total expend
Total, tures to Nov.
1917.
$90, 000. 00
30, 000. 00
118, 930. 00
205, 000. 00
45, 000. 00
44, 500. 00
23, 017. 75
10, 500. 00
40, 152. 00
153, 613. 38
10, 000. 00
325,000.00
90, 000. 00
60, 138. 00
29, 990. 00
45, 000. 00
55, 048. 00
27, 299. 75
74, 900. 00
279, 979. 73
290, 000. 00
72, 000. 00
30, 000. 00
90, 000. 00
45, 000. 00
30, 000. 00
1,000.00
10, 328. 00
85, 000. 00
25, 000. 00
646, 619. 05
154, 396. 65
6, 000. 00
280, 000. 00
50, 000. 00
14, 261. 76
240, 000. 00
44, 900. 00
50, 000. 00
10, 000. 00
135, 000. 00
297, 015. 00
14, 375. 00
13,500.00
110, 000. 00
80, 000. 00
48, 347. 56
152, 228. 09
12, 000. 00
10,000.00
9, 549. 21
15,000.00
314,
.50
5, 144, 588. 43
315,263.45
368, 000. 00
830, 561. 12
$88, 155. 14
19, 974. 53
92, 413. 65
161, 555. 44
29, 999. 20
26, 644. 14
18. 869. 18
8, 148. 06
38, 537. 01
95, 762. 38
9, 290. 52
289, 947. 04
89, 264. 07
42, 715. 82
22, 151. 36
44, 510. 61
53, 442. 60
26, 987. 29
74, 329. 89
160, 515. 58
255, 152. 23
51,612.17
29. 999. 19
88, 522. 23
40, 999. 03
21,444.84
9, 584. 58
74, 292. 80
24, 307. 29
641, 483. 37
103, 842. 06
5, 984. 37
265, 824. 94
39, 529. 67
6, 460. 62
230, 350. 99
31, 506. 22
42, 432. 76
9, 948. 50
133, 547. 52
296, 985. 52
14, 372. 22
9, 516. 54
112, 483. 07
63, 565. 79
48, 335. 75
114, 390. 17
8, 154. 74
720. 80
2, 654. 72
8, 950. 80
147,296.46
$1, 844. 86
10, 025. 47
26, 516. 35
43, 444. 56
15, 000. 80
17, 855. 86
4, 148. 57
2, 351. 94
1, 614. 99
57, 851. 00
709. 48
35, 052. 96
735. 93
17, 422. 18
7,838.64
489. 39
1, 605. 40
312. 46
570. 11
119,464.15
34, 847. 77
20, 387. 83
.81
1,477.77
4, 000, 97
8, 559. 16
1, 000. 00
743. 42
10, 707. 20
692. 71
5, 135. 68
50, 554. 59
15.63
14, 175. 06
10,470.33
7, 801. 14
9, 649. 01
13, 393. 78
7, 567. 24
51.50
1, 452. 48
29.48
2.78
3, 983. 46
• 2, 483. 07
16, 434. 21
11.81
37, 837. 92
3, 845. 26
9, 279. 20
6, 894. 49
6, 049. 20
167, 703. 04
17,126.96
December allot-
$40, 000. 00
10, 000. 00
10, 000. 00
5, 000. 00
8, 000. 00
25,661.00
80,000.00
4, 400. 12
10, 000. 00
2, 500. 00
200, 000. 00
10, 000. 00
13, 000. 00
10,500.00
13, 000. 00
10, 000. 00
15, 000. 00
1, 500. 00
43, 500. 00
'23,'566."66
10,000.00
APPENDIX TABLES 1 AND 2.
PROPORTION OF REGISTRANTS TO CALLED AND OF CALLED TO ACCEPTED.
United States.
Uabama.
Arizona. .
ieorgia.
^dalio...
'llinois..
-owa 1.
Kansas
:5entucky.
rolina.
ikota..
>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
Mi<lii-an
Minnesota
I'issij^sippi
J'.i^sonii...
Jlontana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
Nciv Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
Nortli Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma ,
Or>gon _
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<ick
2,321
228
157
236
428
366
194
190
178
244
210
124
262
221
214
125
354
207
286
197
340
250
216
529
163
214
240
103
166
305
309
1,140
19
38
143
291
25
70
44
24
12
185
50
131
26
184
62
143
105
42
137
212
198
15
28
188
13
18
57
263
55
215
207
161
105
:;;^'[X--
191
325
1--1- 1
1 1 (i
ciiriv.kee
ChiUnn
213
159
1-2- 3
1-3-10
1 3 11
ChnrLw
Claiko
Olav
Cleburne
118
873
452
404
797
193
311
790
720
1,147
283
770
873
496
1,456
900
747
210
299
386
426
128
1,110
2,075
1,110
1,202
530
-926
646
766
1,026
323
474
1,420
950
1,024
790
268
68
23
33
14
9
61
31
54
30
58
26
43
1
162
27
39
11
53
27
28
6
17
190
112
143
16
37
40
72
39
29
35
50
149
27
25
35
664
316
262
695
158
199
588
452
951
167
523
736
347
32
1,023
541
547
148
179
244
314
82
916
1,421
550
783
360
773
714
494
814
249
288
859
673
898
645
171
141
120
119
53
48
112
133
217
142
86
189
137
103
16
270
324
162
51
78
115
84
40
162
464
171
266
154
110
191
200
212
45
142
511
128
99
120
62
530
237
199
471
93
119
422
360
737
126
536
518
249
25
740
378
418
140
120
160
238
52
614
1,048
347
584
210
576
319
337
514
189
210
532
455
686
483
128
490
145
135
402
41
342
270
544
83
437
404
73
18
591
311.
272
62
77
41
166
14
478
749
238
246
168
495
249
245
153
99
101
276
526
315
40
94
li
38
27
80
90
193
43
109
114
49
7
149
67
146
47
43
119
72
38
136
119
338
32
72
70
91
361
90
109
256
166
160
168
50
204
177
124
1^- 2
12 4
Colbert
250
100
110
250
1-1-10
1-4 3
Crenshaw
156
408
82
12 5
Dallas
368
1-4- 4
DeKalb
312
166
1 '^ 6
16
14 5
413
220
1^ 7
290
1 1 13
83
P ,
104
1-2- 7
1-1-14
1-1-15
Hale
Henry
201
148
437
1-3-13
1-3-14
1-3-15
1-4- 9
1-1-10
1^ 11
Jefferson No 1
672
301
Jefferson No. 3
ili"ier.u.ie". ■.'.'.■;;;!; !;■.;;
1,522
164
321
243
270
306
159
161
496
273
199
285
415
26
87
22
87
23
49
16
54
42
115
536
222
268
202
229
1-4-12
1 1 17
650
1, 391
1,386
4,253
2,228
1,706
2,438
2,611
151
184
517
12 8
355
337
Marshal
328
1-2- 9
Mobile No. 1
106
' The figures to the left of the table are the code-serial numbers given each local board by this office; thefirst igure representing the
State the second the district board, the third the local board in each district. Cities are indicated by capitals and counties by small
letter's. Where a city or county contains two or moro local boards the totals for such community for gross quota and enlistment credits
appear for the last board. The figures in all other columns are taken from the reports of local boards dated about Nov. 12, 1917.
94 KEPOKT OF THE PEOVOST MARSHAL GENERAL.
Numbers of registrants, gross quota, credits, net quota, called, etc., shown ly local hoards in every State — Continued.
ALABAMA— Continued.
Local board.
Total
regis-
trants.
Gross
quota.
EnUst-
c™mts.
Net
quota.
Called for
examina-
tion.
Failed
to ap-
pear.
Accepted
S0:
Rejected
tit
Total
claims for
exemp-
tion and
discharge.
riaims
allowed.
Claims
disal-
lowed.
Certified
to district
boards.
2; 728
2,080
3,812
1,850
3,213
1,440
2,052
2,438
2,098
1,703
1,948
2,025
1,605
2,929
2,147
4,580
4,152
1,220
1,847
1,061
538
314
242
445
213
375
106
240
244
216
220
235
187
342
250
535
481
142
215
124
387
234
35
252
102
47
54
40
131
23
44
81
30
122
59
162
156
62
42
23
67
80
207
193
111
328
112
200
155
221
172
145
146
157
120
191
373
325
80
173
101
160
300
614
789
476
1,656
524
613
725
923
409
753
692
315
713
484
1,040
1,456
415
489
814
7
17
28
136
58
145
45
44
104
41
49
32
59
13
70
22
191
37
103
208
430
432
322
1,032
314
505
416
632
181
560
528
230
545
627
1,045
254
314
530
47
75
155
221
96
479
165
171
203
250
52
143
105
73
70
304
220
122
108
257
70
151
296
258
311
747
238
236
471
72
402
412
154
351
304
335
604
161
205
389
35
98
144
176
167
683
142
171
224
378
46-
310
313
24
247
166
253
483
87
139
380
35
53
152
82
144
52
96
86
12
93
26
92
99
130
104
138
81
121
74
66
9
69
108
1 2 12
289
1 1 19
290
155
377
1 2 13
Perry . .
173
1 3 16
Pickens
334
189
253
1 1 23
RxiBsell
409
1 <! 17
St (Uair
253
Shelby
201
Sumter
193
1 3 19
Talladega
299
1 1 24
Tallapoosa
230
1 3 90
956
Walker
516
169
1 '' 15
Wilcox
175
1^ 19
141
2 11
Apache
478
6,752
1,426
5,322
771
3,544
5,325
1,149
936
3,421
2,892
954
3,478
1,241
72
783
162
621
88
404
C45
134
108
394
357
109
448
145
30
119
103
59
22
60
259
53
31
109
47
51
55
42
664
59
562
66
344
386
81
77
285
310
109
397
90
200
4,002
258
3,300
771
2,070
3,041
462
347
2,060
2,035
615
2,402
550
10
1,273
837
111
526
487
99
114
627
585
212
570
188
125
1,705
122
1,192
493
418
1,708
208
261
1,185
425
225
1,061
224
59
537
14
388
157
157
759
40
248
176
54
226
103
65
1,610
100
1,357
396
1,144
1,086
146
165
895
1,098
289
1,057
134
51
1,459
79
1,310
315
1,115
890
111
153
1,016
231
943
120
7
151
16
47
81
29
196
35
162
82
58
115
14
86
Cocliise
780
65
2 2 2
Gila
607
2 2 3
210
248
871
2 14
40
2 15
139
458
Pinal
259
2 16
Santa Cruz
155
2 17
689
2 2 7
Yuma
144
AEKAKSAS.
3 11
2,051
2,209
795
2,190
i;231
1,380
1,161
1,746
2,155
2,334
1,004
1,070
2,313
1,855
3,132
2,029
3,313
1,927
1,172
2,020
1,898
2,148
1,363
897
2,010
952
2,347
2,503
1,400
240
256
92
255
142
162
116
138
204
263
273
117
126
266
220
368
237
387
226
136
235
239
258
159
107
233
111
202
301
163
184
1
211
124
82
41
65
58
72
166
65
93
145
117
115
107
6
42
106
30
5G
21
132
67
209
17
175
53
26
56
198
84
44
18
80
75
73
146
191
107
52
ill
103
253
130
381
184
30
205
183
237
27
40
24
94
27
248
137
348
697
368
244
154
351
391
554
96
1,000
300
136
571
513
1,402
550
800
545
220
604
1,117
1,381
189
288
184
530
179
185
876
5
39
12
5
23
20
16
21
66
3
12
8
14
7
22
18
92
59
3
109
15
6
9
7
26
7
48
53
216
506
276
139
92
200
267
338
216
735
294
210
91
360
323
991
449
548
360
169
399
807
948
121
159
104
353
104
711
523
134
152
93
57
128
106
200
33
190
105
88
37
161
183
332
97
160
99
33
96
212
412
48
110
64
121
08
478
300
170
264
313
99
68
136
172
245
129
503
254
145
65
283
278
675
369
297
239
122
250
528
773
96
123
70
246
86
484
552
92
236
233
66
15
90
154
208
39
308
204
112
42
220
122
440
297
141
168
96
200
355
551
112
60
138
82
321
442
28
80
33
53
46
37
84
195
50
33
23
21
156
235
72
156
71
20
50
173
222
30
11
9
108
4
163
110
97
3 12
Ashley
274
135
3-2-2
3-2-3
3 13
72
76
Bradley
157
101
135
3 15
Chicot
213
3 16
Clark
400
Clay
145
102
47
3 2 5
144
3 1 10
185
551
145
3 1 12
Crittenden
400
3 1 13
Cross
183
3 1 14
Dallas
77
Desha
399
457
3 1 17
Faulkner
411
307
62
47
47
215
3 1 ''1
40
3-2-8
3-1-22
Hempstead
Hot Sprinea
371
206
APPENDIX TABLES.
95
Numbers of registrants, gross quota, credits, net quota, called, etc., shown by local hoards in every State — Continued.
ARKANSAS— Continued.
Local board.
Total
regis-
trants.
Gross
quota.
EnUst-
Net
quota.
Called for
tion.
Failed
^ar-
Accepted
tr
Total
claims tor
exemp-
tion and
Claims
allowed.
<^ar
lowed.
Certified
to district
boards.
3 2-9
H
1,467
(')
1,077
2,471
1,842
3,420
1,673
1, 265
1,981
2,639
1,654
],256
2,215
2,579
1, 965
2,859
1,183
905
5^053
1,850
940
1,694
867
1,895
892
4,812
1,162
2,325
1,107
2,194
1, 521
2, 852
1,396
1,548
2,903
1.486
1,150
1,197
2, 301
1,987
1,293
881
752
2, 464
1,167
2, 452
172
240
125
289
70
172
33
161
102
68
92
128
169
314
23
97
100
266
163
57
170
149
265
70
45
69
402
173
96
166
76
122
40
427
119
244
108
97
152
128
78
131
230
113
118
118
76
75
133
59
81
236
120
76
171
20
116
720
17
596
108
434
387
47
103
3 1 "3
3-1 24
Izard
562
576
580
1,000
149
410
476
718
479
300
440
336
1,100
442
207
297
1,154
546
625
700
460
397
300
1,242
709
721
505
602
489
740
253
662
610
901
700
649
412
484
1,004
788
731
820
. 743
302
565
60
37
23
28
84
"0
54
19
7
20
75
3
81
11
3
5
57
46
41
29
11
9
25
188
13
111
6
26
25
43
20
13
42
5
21
38
8
46
45
21
37
6
2
27
375
345
416
807
117
311
338
479
320
213
337
523
238
780
281
153
230
736
410
359
547
384
260
186
872
456
523
306
375
410
377
192
407
387
620
506
497
255
107
710
219
327
542
459
132
390
28
150
181
114
109
32
77
138
186
140
82
83
205
83
239
130
51
61
246
90
225
124
65
137
156
240
154
377
168
54
225
28
234
131
186
189
130
114
160
• 294
524
404
241
278
150
148
32
269
254
281
409
88
179
267
255
180
108
203
333
199
543
208
109
156
395
193
285
'389
295
131
160
436
329
325
196
342
246
514
111
263
232
436
376
226
326
450
241
343
338
79
273
35
244
146
186
184
80
125
140
164
168
59
110
236
158
453
196
62
107
250
153
207
336
290
91
244
317
119
51
307
194
324
71
234
159
377
336
276
103
161
293
112
199
246
15
55
25
77
95
225
8
54
106
91
12
49
97
41
90
12
38
30
125
40
78
53
5
68
69
192
12
55
145
35
52
190
40
29
73
58
26
120
123
51
157
57
42
87
323
24
185
3
117
3-1-25
Jackson
166
3-1-26
Jefferson No 1
249
3-1-27
613
196
147
309
193
146
iso
173
50
136
i
602
3-2-10
34
214
3-1-28
206
3-1-29
Lee
369
3-1-30
171
157
3-1-31
Little Rock No. 1
Little Rock No. 2
239
3-1-32
624
230
334
151
106
219
578
217
112
199
105
221
104
562
270
129
264
186
"426'
181
341
173
133
140
305
192
81
61
150
176
44
16
33
29
99
64
135
17
32
21
167
34
'""214'
50
. Ill
60
15
22
278
43
3-1-33
Lonoke
304
3-2-14
3-2-15
Madison
73
67
3-2-16
MilU-v
103
3-1-34
3-1-35
^[™n:'^:'v::;:;::::::::::
392
235
3-1-36
3-2-17
3-2-18
3-2-19
Moutu'omr.rv
X.'va.la...;
NoV.-inll
152
213
94
205
Pori-v
96
3-1-38
Phillips
640
3 ■> 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
Gr<M.nc
Grnndv
Hamilton
Ilanicck
liardin
Hfuderson
Hunry
Iro(|Uois
Jackson
Jasper
Jefferson
Jer.sey
Jo Daviess
Jolmson
JOI.IET
Kano No. 1
Kane No. 2
Kankakee
Kendall
Kno-x No. 1
Kno.xNo. 2
Lake No. 1
Lake No. 2
LaSalleNo. 1
La Salle No. 2
La Salle No. 3
Lawrence
Lee
Livingston
Logan
McDonough
McIIenry
McLean No. 1
McLean No. 2
Macon
Macoupin No. 1
M.acoupin No. 2
Madi.»on No. 1
Madison No. 2
Madison No. 3
Marion
Mai-shall
Jl.ison
Ma
Menard
Jlercer
Monroe
Montgomery..
Morgan
Mou'ltrie
Ogle
Peoria No. 1.
Peoria No. 2.
Peoria
Perry
2,927
3,378
3,034
1,626
1,482
3,478
3,271
s^igi
2,027
709
1,378
2,012
1,408
5,180
2,160
1,139
1,816
1,672
1,254
2,240
606
801
4,021
2,950
2,886
1,200
2,160
1,044
1,891
996
4,817
2, 530
2,876
3,620
946
1,822
2,167
2,995
3,304
3,174
3,480
2,328
2, 548
3,397
2,369
2,183
3,030
3,058
2,797
1,760
1,951
2,279
2, 654
3,872
4,682
3,052
1,364
1,418
1,195
950
1,577
1,083
3,485
L179
2,422
4,053
3,284
2,847
1,926
^82
240
128
1,100
1,000
466
429
1,199
1,001
624
228
215
544
655
2,825
367
600
516
520
380
960
56
371
1,051
1,100
781
231
428
369
467
354
538
824
558
774
2,008
1,573
1,049
1,439
1,050
1,000
702
1,152
600
861
500
1,001
720
900
573
2,150
1, 023
1,511
S82
500
500
82
330
185
319
1,061
422
302
1,039
984
332
193
554
305
350
407
278
109
118
267
307
1,223
272
326
390
377
305
651
177
244
705
775
532
205
312
283
370
279
377
560
620
410
250
412
546
1,392
1,218
737
931
754
579
542
802
484
658
561
548
1,548
1,221
994
558
406
360
42
234
235
170
196
253
288
173
431
76
163
481
440
375
162
-120
143
181
193
170
336
370
244
145
290
353
1,009
771
491
656
381
350
533
287
516
221
405
363
422
275
360
•.Quota fiUtd by Tolontary <
106 REPORT OF THE PROVOST MARSHAL GENERAL.
Numbers of registrants, gross quota, credits, net quota, called, etc., shown by local hoards in every State — Continued.
ILLINOIS— Continued.
Piatt
Pike ,
Pope
Pulaski
Putnam
QlllNOY
Kan.iolph
Kirhlaiid
K X'KKJRD No. I...
K )rKF.)RD No. 2...
Rock Lslaiid No. 1.
Rock Island No. 2.
St. riair No. I
St. Clair No. 2
Saline
Sangamon ,
Schuyler
Scott
Sholl>v
SPiilNGFlELD No. I,
SMU\<iHELD No. 2,
St;irk
Stophenson
I\i7,cu-ell
Union ,
VernulionNo. 1...
\'ennUion No. 2
WalKieh
Warren
Washington
Wayne
While
Whiteside
Will No. I ,
Will No. 2 ,
Williamson No. 1..
Williamson No. 2..
Winnebago
Woodford
Tctal
trsnts.
Enlist-
credits.
836
692
173
444
292
731
600
234
900
1,300
1, 152
1,846
1,234
1, 151
1,100
952
401
292
640
248
250
276
1, Oni
2t<8
401
1, 100
767
434
575
1,004
799
256
1,076
716
642
Failed
to ap-
pear.
Aceeptod
280
227
438
457
171
734
863
871
1,203
938
829
862
788
827
104
461
179
170
210
752
240
800
690
Rejected
106
329
160
113
130
510
127
210
^45
352
187
249
198
290
351
285
502
870
1C5
462
837
266
Adama
Allen
Bartholomew
Benton
Blackford
B.xwe
Brown
Carroll
Caws
Clark
Clay
Clinton
Crawford
DaMess
Dearborn
Decatur
Dekalb
Delaware No. 1 ,
Delaware No. 2
Dubois
East Chicaoo
Elkhart No. 1
Elkhart No. 2
EVANSVILLE No. 1..
EVANSVILLE No. 2..
EVANSVILLE No. 3..
Favette
Floyd
Fort Wayne No. 1
Port Wayne No. 2
1.622
212
105
107
613
5
842
146
817
. 197
42
2,612
258
160
108
440
84
800
106
204
163
41
1,819
229
125
104
863
6
260
88
175
96
79
1,080
131
32
99
400
1
810
72
181
130
61
1.049
164
68
98
»47
26
446
175
345
287
68
1. 923
245
80
165
823
27
648
133
482
443
28
456
65
13
52
166
121
44
56
23
33
1,291
173
48
125
668
33
869
161
243
208
35
3,311
389
128
261
1,838
121
871
335
568
375
193
2,048
283
82
251
■ 730
23
673
132
845
270
101
2,244
313
90
223
756
27
632
197
843
281
62
2,163
276
120
156
932
66
632
859
338
289
65
886
113
82
81
221
14
• 178
29
127
60
53
1,973
246
74
172
1,050
87
798
190
654
489
64
1,545
192
81
161
472
402
70
211
72
139
1,231
144
65
89
330
16
217
97
137
71
66
2,019
243
160
88
636
18
874
144
284
261
23
3,532
235
867
92
676
199
422
208
214
1,341
594
270
89
814
4
230
80
163
92
71
1,643
180
83
147
401
5
297
104
166
68
88
6,656
617
249
950
214
620
116
271
211
60
1, 939
2,695
134
186
580
761
6
62
462
555
. 122
144
360
424
286
301
74
123
553
233
2,728
229
995
24
646
369
849
278
71
2,191
183
814
12
619
273
351
327
24
2,247
835
235
188
1,001
84
269
499
433
66
1,609
176
59
117
639
84
323
182
214
143
71
2,349
288
103
183
806
26
478
282
459
365
94
2, 502
2.234
122
109
550
555
50
26
370
351
130
134
237
220
210
195
10
25
APPENDIX TABLES.
107
Numbers of registrants , gross quota, credits, net quota, called, etc., shown by local boards in every State — Continued.
INDIANA— Continued.
Accepted
Rejected
Total
laimsfor
exemi)-
Claims
disal-
lowed.
Fort Wayne No. 3...
Fountain
Franklin
Fulton
Gary No. 1
Gary No. 2
G-4.RY No. 3
Gibson
Grant No. 1
Grant No. 2
Greene
Hamilton
Hancock
Harrison
Hendricks
Henry
Howard
ni!ntinn;ton
I.NDIANAPOLIS No. 1...
Indianapolis No. 2...
Indianapolis No. 3...
Indianapolis No. 4..
Indianapolis No. 5..
Indianapolis No. 6..
Indianapolis No. 7..
Indianapolis No. 8..
Indianapolis No. 9-.
Indianapolis No. 10.
Jackson ,
Jasper ,
Jay
Jefferson
Jenniugs
Johnson
Kno.x
Kosciusko
Lai^an^e
Lake N'o. 1
Lake No. 2 ,
Lake No. 3
La Porte No. 1
La Porto No. 2
Lawrence
Madison No. 1
Madison No. 2
Marion
M.arshall
Martiu
yn-.mn
M..nr.'0
Ml int jomery
Morgan. A
Newton
Noble
Ohio
Orange
Owen
Parke
Perry
Pike
Porter
Posey.
Pulaski .
Putnam.
Randolph .
Ripley.
Rush.
Scott
Shelby
South Bend No. 1.
South Bend No. 2.
Spencer
Starke
Steuben
St. Joseph ,
3,167
1,500
1,039
1,148
3;26S
3,397
2,379
2,651
1,548
2,936
1,923
1, 354
1,260
1,409
2,915
3,836
2,483
2,553
3,333
3,512
3,962
3,215
3,224
2,760
2,922
2,139
3,832
1,763
1, 158
1,79G
1,299
900
1,624
3,842
2,059
1,080
1,819
3,957
1,856
2,323
2,322
2,290
3, 555
2,301
2,694
1,852
888
2,400
2, 053
2,168
> 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<mvNo.2
Albany No. 3
Allcany
AMSrKRDA.\I
Auburn
BlNGHAMTON No. 1.
BlNGHAMTON No. 2.
Broome
Buffalo No. 1
Buffalo No. 2
Buffalo No. 3
Buffalo No. 4
Buffalo No. 5
Buffalo No. 6
Buffalo No. 7
Buffalo No. 8
'iOFFALO No. 9
Buffalo No. 10...
Buffalo No. 11...
Buffalo No. 12
Buffalo No. 13
Buffalo No. 14. ..
Buffalo No. 15. ..
Buffalo No. 1G. ..
Cattaraugus No. 1..
Cattaraugus No. 2. .
Cattaraugus No. 3. .
Cayuga
Chautauqua No. 1. .
Chautauqua No. 2. .
Chautauqua No. 3. .
Chemung
Chenango
Clinton No. 1
Clinton No. 2
Columbia
Cortland
Delaware No. 1
Delaware No. 2
Dutchess No. 1
Dutchess No. 2
Elmira
Erie No. 1
Erie No. 2
Erie No. 3
Erie No. 4
Franklin No. 1.
Franklin No. 2.
Fulton No. 1...
Fulton No. 2...
Genesee
Greene
Hamilton ,
3,317
2,540
2,186
2, 057
2,-018
2,347
1,951
2, 851
3,409
3,249
3, fiOS
3,170
4,395
3,748
3,073
6, 365
3,347
2, C46
3,370
4,292
2, 600
3,002
2,486
2,424
2,586
4,495
5,543
3,794
3,126
2,410
2,120
1,578
2,100
2,444
1,630
1,840
1,586
2, 532
1,928
31258
2,370
1,739
1,541
2,312
2,267
4,268
4,923
2,753
2,311
3,010
3,152
1,885
1,737
1,858
2,998
"376'
375
468
580
661
592
532
826
1,110
248
1,140
778
977
1,128
704
1,050
1,162
805
1,190
1,421
996
1,202
595
1,054
940
900
1,291
1,854
1,808
551
514
466
600
752
586
025
701
1,547
063
759
1,070
802
552
504
800
1,534
603
1,202
1,251
1,244
2,001
1,128
542
500
665
762
655
739
1,238
842
322
333
389
539
388
429
875
484
486
660
441
347
315
463
644
352
77
112
180
169
315
275
212
214
455
125
577
197
295
371
409
283
108
266
543
598
335
381
30
389
555
269
327
1, 269
580
224
143
154
163
248
135
193
211
431
212
167
354
247
177
174
303
334
218
346
415
224
130 ' EEPOET OF THE PROVOST MARSHAL GENERAL.
Numbers of registrants, gross quota, credits, net quota, called, etc., sTioivn hy local hoards in every Slate — Continued.
NEW YORK— Continued.
Local board.
Total
regis-
trants.
Gross
quota.
Knlist-
ment
credits.
Net
quota.
Called tor
eiamina-
tlon.
Failed
to ap-
pear.
Accepted
n ejected
Total
claims for
exemp-
tion and
discharge.
Claims
allowed.
Claims
disal-
lowed.
Certified
to district
boards.
31-1- 9
31-1-10
31-0-10
31-3- 7
31-3- 8
31-3- 9
31-7- 1
31-3-10
31-7- 2
31-7- 3
31-7- 4
31-2-11
31-4- 5
31-5- 2
31-5- 3
31-5- 4
31-5- 5
31-4- 6
31-9- 1
31-9- 2
31-9- 3
31-9- 4
31-9- 5
31-9- 6
31-9- 7
31-9- 8
31-9- 9
3.005
3,318
3.895
1,721
2,283
1.810
2, 956
2, 921
1,803
1,910
2,202
2,102
3,075
3,197
2.719
2,729
2, 095
2, 583
2, 0-10
3,370
2, 935
3,881
4,641
2, 4.32
2,304
3, 591
3, 530
3, 460
3, 582
3, 030
4, 302
283
271
309
185
183
185
232
271
212
188
205
202
140
276
219
290
294
207
192
242
217
224
268
213
145
240
232
227
203
189
243
216
206
203
198
240
219
195
205
195
188
181
170
183
224
228
228
232
218
222
178
173
196
273
268
203
220
219
234
264
183
199
210
219
218
242
238
255
238
108
179
171
224
232
1,345
1,037
1,720
106
870
864
2,950
1,157
1,124
850
1, 050
1,100
840
1, 401
1,090
1,763
1, 402
983
1,198
1, 151
1,601
1,345
1,301
828
780
1,561
1,275
1,138
787
1,000
1,204
1,576
1, 189
1, ,300
1,350
1,740
1,906
1,846
1,233
1,003
700
811
708
728
1,210
1,885
1, 102
1,000
923
750
751
699
781
1,200
1,308
855
1,305
851
1, 206
1,225
1,201
1, 200
807
853
1,028
805
1,100
1,260
"l,'766'
999
900
971
81
66
115
38
64
42
146
103
72
65
52
54
254
206
286
50
36
97
94
148
16
57
25
42
96
52
78
49
67
23
66
68
57
53
52
115
67
29
124
56
96
133
70
226
457
48
71
28
6
52
11
36
43
85
100
78
42
135
29
52
97
77
42
37
23
109
23
"194"
117
44
43
593
690
944
482
509
648
2,002
662
613
732
580
538
861
680
1,120
1, 045
517
705
755
1,116
866
856
7(t6
503
1,107
967
809
496
631
797
971
861
898
871
1,094
840
1,181
793
583
439
391
814
490
579
969
641
744
594
547
640
457
731
1,020
605
765
579
842
735
807
511
641
674
531
550
808
912
"1,634
504
720
417
269
386
238
201
174
540
472
224
161
208
468
248
280
212
386
251
223
370
302
337
441
388
97
235
348
254
251
291
302
355
537
260
322
407
594
520
612
259
296
153
324
461
161
274
452
296
185
242
ISO-
130
148
274
292
183
123
201
194
335
248
384
279
199
135
2C0
291
232
181
295
"""472"
317
107
169
556
431
920
306
428
405
1,305
583
509
372
529
341
311
539
407
901
1,082
521
480
488
896
707
738
457
374
842
637
521
300
652
649
814
701
092
602
962
902
526
325
819
341
516
614
520
525
421
330
379
393
319
610
732
383
651
325
496
812
797
623
314
384
453
408
333
597
094
■■■'soe'
344
522
513
492
330
858
273
327
370
723
573
414
282
475
207
293
448
340
767
923
428
419
458
784-
571
543
374
287
700
591
489
262
402
444
634
525
581
525
604
922
879
643
449
258
153
656
276
417
489
434
394
359
257
284
281
219
502
678
318
589
287
245
681
702
508
235
200
348
348
213
469
500
"'roi'
205
430
481
64
101
62
33
35
191
10
95
90
53
74
14
91
01
134
159
72
61
30
112
136
195
86
134
46
32
. 95
123
205
180
176
77
29
40
23
80
77
65
149
163
65
125
86
105
62
24
93
114
100
108
54
40
62
139
120
95
117
79
70
105
14
120
128
127
""lis'
79
92
1 32
341
Herkimer No. 2
805
449
251
140
373
425
T<^ffpr«r.ii ISIn 1
249
795
211
S43
355
261
26
111
84
302
Lewis
294
Li\angston
1,070
419
409
Monroe No 2
340
248
359
94
46
219
283
309
Mount Vernon
Nassau No 1
196
607
■NTcac'lil Nn 9
312
419
Nassau No. 4
1,440
302
361
95
429
217
New York No. 1
New York No.2
New York No.3
Nfw York No 4
350
327
338
291
New York No.5
New York No. 6
New York No 7
313
227
New Y'orK No 8
512
New York No. 9
\r-w York- Nn.lO
374
317
31-0-11 New York No. 11
218
267
31-9-13
31-9-14
31-9-15
31-9-16
31-9-17
31-9-18
31-9-19
31-9-20
31-9-21
31-9-22
81-9-23
81-9-24
31-9-25
31-9-26
31-9-27
31-9-28
31-9-29
31-9-ro
31-9-31
31-9-32
31-9-33
31-9-34
31-9-35
31-9-30
31-9-37
31-9-3.-i
31-9-39
31-9-10
Sl-9-il
31-9 42
31-9-13
31-9-14
31 -9-15
31-9-16
31 9—17
New YoriK No. 13
New York No. 14
Nkw York No. 15
Nkw York No. 16
New York No.17
New York No. 18
New York No. 19
New Yore No. 20
New York No. 21
New York No. 22
New York No. 23
New York No. 24
New Y'ork No.25
New Y'ork No.26
New York No. 27
New Y'ork No. 28
New York No. 29
New York No. 30
New York No.31
New York No. 32
New York No. 33
New York No. 34
New York No.35
New York No. 36
New York No. 37
New York No. 38
New Y'ork No. 39
New Y'ork No. 40
New York No. 41
New Y'ork No. 42
New York No. 43
New Y'ork No. 44
New York No. 45
New Y'ork No. 40
New York No. 47
New Y'ork No. 48
New York No. 49
364
334
3,675
3, 983
2,776
3, 408
3,126
3,270
3,695
2, 653
3,063
3,118
3,093
2,461
4,01S
4,154
4,210
3, 133
2, 390
2,050
2, 323
2.421
2,683
3,345
4, 202
2,830
2, 915
3,636
3,102
3,049
2,543
2,443
3,314
2, 572
2,805
2,882
2,999
336
326
335
374
290
324
255
273
228
389
267
236
299
342
341
281
271
277
259
267
334
249
304
289
444
341
236
345
325
298
379
31-9^8
31-9-49
31-9-50
31-9-51
31-9-52
31-0-.'.3
31-9 -'.4
31-9-55
Sl-9-50
287
465
236
New York No. 51
New Y'ork No. 52
New Y'ork No. 53
New York No. 54
New Y'ork No. 55
New Y'ork No. 5C
2. 350
3,005
3,702
346
"
284
299
270
271
APPENDIX TABLES. 13 X
Numbers of registrants, gross quota, credits, net quota, called, etc., shown by local boards in every State — Continued.
NEW YORK— Contmued.
Total
regis-
trants.
Failed
to ap-
pear.
;ojected
physi-
cally.
Total
claims for
exemp-
New
New-
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
-New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
York No. 57..
York No. 58..
York No. 59..
York No. 60..
York No. 61..
York No. 62..
York No. 63..
York No. 64..
York No. 65..
York No. 66..
York No. 67..
York No. 68..
York No. 69..
York No. 70..
York No. 71..
York No. 72..
York No. 73..
York No. 74..
York No. 75..
York No. 76..
York No. 77..
York No. 78..
York No. 79..
York No. 80.
York No. 81.
York No: 82.,
York No. 83 . ,
York No. 84. ,
York No. 85. .
York No. 86..
York No. 87 . .
York No. 88. .
York No. 89. .
York No. 90. .
York No. 91. .
York No. 92. .
York No. 93 . .
York No. 94. .
York No. 95. .
York No. 96. .
York No. 97. .
York No. 98..
York No. 99..
York No. 100.
York No. 101 .
York No. 102.
York No. 103.
York No. 104.
York No. 105.
York No. 106.
York No. 107.
York No. 108.
York No. 109.
York No. 110.
York No. 111.
York No. 112.
York No. 113.
York No. 114.
York No. 115.
York No. 116.
York No. 117.
York No. 118.
York No. 119.
York No. 120.
York No. 121.
York No. 122.
York No. 123.
York No. 124.
York No. 125.
York No. 126.
York No. 127.
York No. 128.
York No. 129.
York No. 130.
3,647
2,610
2,693
3,143
3,263
2,257
2,175
2,395
3,468
2,524
3,023
2,326
2,217
2,097
2.382
2,433
3,793
2,346
2,521
2,378
2,840
2,490
2,785
2,580
2,871
3,349
2, 880
3,094
3,382
3,123
4,316
3,794
2^844
3,872
3,217
2,827
3,946
3,000
3,276
2,582
3, 335
2,758
3,612
3,728
3,611
3,371
3,181
3,679
4,232
3,903
3,837
3,332
4,344
3,944
4,394
3,242
3,197
2,750
3,376
2,836
2,792
3,491
3,673
4,025
2,449
2,212
2,121
3,798
2,881
2,951
3,897
1,157
1,400
1,350
805
1,000
1,399
1,020
1,419
1,083
797
1,384
799
900
959
919
1,500
1,100
1,000
1,100
1,548
1,284
1,993
2,225
2,679
1,259
1,858
1,103
1,036
2,043
1,493
1,699
1,600
1,627
1, 655
1,610
2,550
1,200
802
832
1,731
1,804
1,600
600
953
1,948
2,791
2,425
817
944
1,808
1,308
1,654
648
791
1,964
1,518
1,146
715
1,120
l^OOO
852
878
620
1,225
726
462
604
853
649
1,027
592
583
748
758
654
722
729
1,323
1,490
1,764
802
795
840
041
1,842
822
926
1,264
1,043
1,473
603
427
513
1,136
1,167
414
556
1,032
1,541
637
540
594
1,161
864
1,027
432
540
602
432
752
526
584
711
804
397
631
371
564
547
449
740
378
389
555
433
518
582
505
1,085
1,228
1,593
601
872
1,241
792
281
520
837
1,379
1,328
402
426
925
715
810
213
337
1,349
672
292
352
486
246
454
501
455
970
1,052
1,488
613
1,135
656
338
717
514
662
981
509
711
520
748
1,075
587
391
240
200
436
711
1,246
350
347
574
727
110
294
1,234
827
476
248
335
480
281
373
842
187
320
296
132
REPORT OF THE PROVOST MAESHAL GENERAL.
Numbers of registrants, gross quota, credits, net quota, called, etc., shown by local boards in every State — Continued.
NEW YORK— Continued.
Local board.
Total
aross
quota.
Knllst-
OTdTts.
Net
«notB.
Caned for
Failed
to ap-
pear
Accepted
IT
Total
cblms tor
tlora^d
discharge.
^^A
Claims
disal-
lowed.
CertiRpd
lodislict
boards.
tlon.
81 9 131
Nbw York No. 181
New York No. 132
New York No. 133
New York No. 134
New York No. 135
New York No. 136
New York No. 137
New York No. 138
New York No. 139
New York No. 140
New York No. 141
New York No. 142
New York No. 143
New York No. 144
New York No. 145
New York No. 146
New York No. 147
New York No. 148
New York No. 149
New York No. 150
New York No. 151
New York No. 152
New York No. 153
New York No. 154
New York No. 155
New York No. 150
New York No. 157
New York No. 158
New York No. 159
New York No. 160
New York No. 161
New York No. 162
New York No. 163
New York No. 164
New York No. 165
New York No. 166
New York No. 167
New York No. 168
New York No. 169
New York No. 170
New York No. 171
New York No. 172
New York No. 173
New York No. 174
New York No. 175
New York No. 176
New York No. 177
New York No. 178
New York No. 179
New York No. 180
New York No. 181
New York No. 182
New York No. 183
New York No. 184
New York No. 185
New York No. 186
New York No. 187
2,871
2,504
2,309
3,028
8,631
2,947
3, 055
3,584
8,185
4,010
2,681
2,822
2,141
4,111
2,792
2,577
2,862
2,953
4.467
2,390
2,537
8,023
2,450
8,161
8,120
3. .316
3,334
4,479
2,384
2,603
3,040
2,452
2,802
2,157
2,844
3,312
4,781
2,735
2, 709
2,875
3,086
2; 610
2,587
2.186
3, 457
2,765
3,946
2,884
2,149
2,754
2, 514
2, 820
2,171
2,618
2,844
171
181
179
230
237
205
230
266
211
1/1
170
190
187
220
211
205
237
205
171
181
213
229
141
212
214
210
172
171
201
213
170
203
195
204
221
228
176
163
163
181
190
194
191
217
172
222
205
257
192
168
206
233
196
221
190
189
202
173
462
321
340
253
200
255
130
128
151
112
132
62
57
69
50
78
849
1,102
1,000
1,124
811
876
1,141
1,412
802
1.202
040
1,056
1,300
1,000
1, 063
9'98
1,435
1,362
1,200
1,102
1.827
2.303
654
929
1,400
1.849
1.200
972
962
1.100
1,100
1,200
826
999
876
1.055
1.099
674
648
525
1.105
1.013
790
788
800
760
1,000
859
1,123
982
667
923
806
902
1,160
900
670
84
23
49
79
68
88
66
122
114
215
181
56
87
171
28
44
64
21
18
144
182
208
38
82
161
47
67
135
97
116
72
91
66
49
41
97
176
22
29
63
67
29
27
36
41
19
51
30
48
26
29
11
30
51
127
28
40
516
782
637
745
698
609
828
860
469
735
618
616
643
721
«88
655
981
790
869
747
763
1.247
281
604
856
665
660
432
681
725
810
673
450
410
740
772
700
402
363
849
679
659
656
542
696
443
716
647
796
652
476
669
654
578
675
656
459
189
262
314
807
130
269
210
899
219
217
241
281
620
108
282
291
800
493
230
181
398
798
135
264
393
384
493
868
233
269
203
403
178
885
95
186
223
246
180
113
359
225
107
189
175
233
182
279
304
139
206
122
227
850
230
171
497
630
438
604
629
882
651
694
849
673
379
474
500
476
644
463
791
615
752
607
603
1,887
222
446
905
753
491
288
381
545
623
647
883
362
628
471
547
805
871
161
471
492
460
387
394
403
603
452
613
565
367
477
460
446
470
44G
230
388
579
294
410
387
272
574
687
235
392
300
414
444
423
484
375
698
605
620
446
607
1,292
183
891
763
689
378
227
318
449
535
491
277
264
374
426
842
198
263
123
406
884
328
321
305
363
393
387
441
640
310
400
336
379
378
409
212
51
144
94
111
105
77
107
114
93
78
60
56
63
60
87
93
70
130
61
61
39
55
142
62
113
61
63
84
87
66
95
98
116
45
205
107
118
38
65
108
132
65
89
40
110
65
172
25
57
77
124
67
92
37
18
288
247
301
81 9 133
81 9 134
297
81-9-13G
260
81-9-137
292
81-9-138
327
3]_9_139
303
81 9 140
213
81-9-141
259
31-9-143
278
81 9 144
310
81-9-145
365
31-9-147
390
31 9 148
300
332
31 9 151
256
31-9-152
204
187
Sl-9-154
194
31 9 1.55
330
31-9-166
250
81-9-157
239
Sl-9 158
217
81-9-159
289
31-9-161
300
81-9-162
239
2S9
Sl_9_164
300
31-9 165
343
31-9-166
354
81-9-168
240
81 9 169
187
243
81-9-171
273
81-9-172
313
31-9-173
311
251
31-9-175
289
31-9-176
234
Sl-9-177
302
31-9-178
'
200
31-9-179
350
31-9-180
252
31-9-181
192
81-9-182
277
31-9-183
338
31-9-184
264
31-9-185
393
31-9-186
248
31-9-187
227
Sl-9-189
31-8- 24
New York No. 189
2,330
7,543
3,426
2,069
4,414
1,696
2,361
2, 7.58
1,696
1,884
2,256
2,164
2, 556
2,414
2,742
2,416
2,253
71,050
870
32,429
408
964
2,146
1,800
1,518
1,993
799
800
1,252
500
604
700
866
375
501
540
317
400
59
376
106
111
244
29
42
151
35
62
84
44
11
43
42
20
10
591
1,247
1,077
875
857
605
678
622
337
384
438
586
238
283
. 370
219
283
242
507
575
632
407
265
222
478
118
158
178
155
119
90
128
98
102
443
1,012
649
647
1, 043
310
312
460
205
280
433
169
264
221
169
166
380
716
599
598
950
240
215
425
140
213
220
393
100
210
212
116
147
63
64
50
40
70
97
31
68
20
60
40
9
54
9
43
19
281
565
31 8- 22
490
3l-8- 23
NiasaraNo 2
763
102
444
51-3- 11
Oneida No 1
415
81-3- 12
289
31-3- 13
991
283
320
5l_3_ 14
Onondaga No. 1
Onondaga No 2
191
!l-3- 15
193
31-3- 16
757
348
162
31-7- 5
210
31 7 6
507
263
272
31-4- 7
Oran^Q No 1
76
31-4- 8
Orange No. 2
Orange No. 3
Orange No. 4
Orleans
159
1-4- 9
182
Jl-4- 10
Jl-8- 25
1,173
263
935
185
85
140
APPENDIX TABLES.
133
Numbers of registrants, gross quota, credits, net quota, called, etc., shown by local boards in every State — Continued.
NEW YORK— Continued.
Local board.
Total
regis-
trants.
Gross
quota.
EnJist-
moot
credits.
Net
quota.
Called for
oxamina-
tion.
Failed
10 ap-
pear.
Accepted
"S^
Total
claims for
e.\emp-
tlon and
discharge.
Claims
allowed.
Clauns
disal-
lowed.
Certlfled
2,043
1,902
1,533
Lsoe
3,160
946
1,815
1,691
3, 668
3, 546
3,471
3,426
4,598
3,603
3,247
2, 455
1, 686
2,051
2,050
3,396
2,298
2, 093
2,980
2,228
2,507
1,780
2,686
1,505
1,544
952
1,748
2.351
2,273
2,023
2,586
2, 689
2,952
2,760
3, 256
3,880
3, 698
4,067
3,347
1, 619
2,987
2, 380
2,204
1,472
2, 139
1,911
2,046
3,744
2,794
3,010
2, 415
1,776
1, 643
2,796
1, 950
1, 986
2,099
2,255
1,761
1, 450
2,140
4,472
2,456
1,207
3,363
2,147
3,252
140
110
139
43
41
169
102
105
115
229
243
241
236
268
267
236
194
117
145
213
214
158
159
156
185
14.
135
(')
149
79
159
143
158
154
912
916
696
310
217
1,060
585
492
521
1,002
1, 450
1,064
1,351
1,501
1,369
992
845
600
900
1,437
765
832
693
697
957
1,006
929
653
13
68
26
25
3
39
51
24
27
32
35
30
31
107
40
47
26
23
58
55
178
65
54
31
10
27
24
444
529
396
180
134
651
323
284
332
709
832
679
821
703
647
742
505
404
527
714
460
497
395
472
433
533
519
354
300
190
274
104
76
332
133
185
162
221
509
303
393
242
464
203
262
173
245
513
50
205
242
193
236
348
286
176
540
451
253
134
83
472
216
156
223
516
555
460
627
875
489
318
270
429
581
313
230
310
534
422
442
250
529
342
158
125
73
421
171
134
142
453
520
424
596
763
567
427
293
223
378
514
232
240
184
293
509
392
412
222
11
95
81
9
10
51
45
IS
81
62
35
36
31
109
66
62
25
£
67
81
129
46
17
25
30
30
28
171
266
31 3 18
31-3 1<)
631
212
235
OtsosoNo. 1
Otsego No. 2
31-2-13
31^-11
393
366
110
309
197
8
65
239
31-4 1'
Putnam
191
31-2-14
Rensselaer No. 1
147
31-2-15
Rensselaer No. 2
407
187
160
285
31-7- 8
ROCHE.STER No. 2
286
31-7- 9
Rochester No 3
307
31-7-10
328
31-7-11
ROCHESTEU No. 5
Rochester No. 6
285
31-7-12
313
31-7-13
327
31 7 14
3,256
1,342
252
31-4-13
Rockland No. 1
181
31-4-14
31-1-11
Rockland No. 2
St. Lawrence No. 1
St. Lawrence No. 2
St. Lawrence No. 3
Saratoga No. 1
Saratoga No. 2
SCHENECT.\Dy No. 1
Schenectady No. 2
SCHENECT.\DY No. 3
Schenectady No. 4
Schciiartady
Schohnric
434
172
216
416
31-1-12
306
31-1-13
31-1-14
31-1-15
31-2-16
899
""584'
260
'""267"
257
226
179
190
31-2-17
232
31-2-18
219
31-2-19
31-2 20
1,104
174
180
111
262
481
176
31
32
43
226
31-2-21
31-6-11
903
654
800
756
603
691
1,322
1,404
1, 405
1,122
1,135
1,202
1,400
1,102
902
995
1,500
243
300
365
549
670
781
1,250
850
1,298
525
447
520
872
1,300
1,029
855
631
392
400
695
853
879
449
1,100
827
1,052
50
24
34
37
65
39
120
43
28
39
40
117
123
83
29
92
73
10
11
10
25
40
72
45
25
61
26
12
27
50
68
62
38
111
9
37
46
68
67
29
45
108
43
493
302
564
433
399
428
781
819
815
558
594
715
820
512
644
582
843
143
167
168
419
346
480
476
547
588
283
248
559
972
665
565
371
240
357
662
585
227
421
492
493
343
292
202
199
146
224
421
454
403
484
392
314
307
284
229
321
436
106
181
106
96
226
211
252
349
216,
126
221
254
260
193
149
108
97
158
100
227
180
321
228
236
352
223
370
345
282
510
613
564
355
450
574
638
527
416
502
652
77
110
111
278
347
324
788
675
156
192
145
380
614
425
481
322
210
195
377
463
324
245
518
317
557
311
191
328
.308
193
173
469
522
512
194
414
534
539
418
331
345
505
101
99
175
267
252
752
289
646
129
142
139
238
530
402
427
142
175
333
345
114
225
474
312
529
34
32
42
5
74
11
91
52
134
36
40
. 79
30
50
1
9
12
103
64
63
36
37
29
27
50
6
81
70
23
54
60
68
10
44
105
210
20
44
5
28
225
236
31-6-12
207
31-6-13
Steuben No. 2
■"82i'
■■'see'
205
255
31-5- 8
Suffolk No. 1
363
31-5- 9
SuffolkNo.2
■"965"
321
■"l54'
'"sii"
252
243
223
241
234
265
154
292
56
55
40
378
340
31-4-15
Sullivan.
269
31-3-20
Syeacdse No. 1
289
31-3 21
272
31-3-22
Syracuse No 3
441
31-3-23
304
31-3-24
31-3 25
Syracuse No. 5..
2, 156
189
350
950
35
58
311
244
31-3-2G
31-2-22
Tomi,kin.s
Troy No. 1
Troy No. 2
327
80
31-2 23
83
31-2-24
31-4-16
Troy No. 3
743
592
75
264
31-4-17
UkstrTNo. 2
190
31-4-18
31-3-27
Ulster Xo. :;
Utica N.>. 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
<lisiil-
lowed.
I Quota flUed by voluntary enliftmcnts.
7 154
UNIVERSITY or CALIFORNIA LIBRARY
Los Angeles
This book is DUE on the last date stamped below.
S SEPoem
AU& 151985
DUE 2 WKS i-RO
(n.ocrn^^
f^^i"^
«:-/
: R£C£:ViD
Ar
LOS ANGELES
LIBRARY
lIllllilliiliililliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiHiii
3 1158 00318 2499