The efficiency and character of the superiors, the officers and the non-commissioned officers, are equally weighty factors in the value of the troops.  They are the professional supporters of discipline, decision, and initiative, and, since they are the teachers of the troops, they determine their intellectual standard.  The number of permanent officers on the establishment in peace is exceedingly small in proportion to their duties in the training of the troops and to the demands made of them on mobilization.  If we reflect how many officers and non-commissioned officers from the standing army must be transferred to the new formations in order to vitalize them, and how the modern tactical forms make it difficult for the superior officer to assert his influence in battle, the numerical inadequacy of the existing personnel is clearly demonstrated.  This applies mainly to the infantry, and in their case, since they are the decisive arm, a sufficient number of efficient officers is essential.  All the more important is it, on the one hand, to keep the establishment of officers and non-commissioned officers in the infantry at full strength, and, on the other hand, to raise the efficiency of the officers and non-commissioned officers on leave or in the reserve.  This latter is a question of training, and does not come into the present discussion.

The task of keeping the establishments at adequate strength is, in a sense, a financial question.  The amount of the pay and the prospects which the profession holds out for subsequent civil posts greatly affect the body of non-commissioned officers, and therefore it is important to keep step with the general increase in prices by improved pecuniary advantages.  Even for the building up of the corps of officers, the financial question is all-important.  The career of the officer offers to-day so little prospect of success and exacts such efficiency and self-devotion from the individual, that he will not long remain in the service, attractive as it is, if the financial sacrifices are so high as they now are.  The infantry officer especially must have a better position.  Granted that the cavalry and mounted artillery officers incur greater expenses for the keep of their horses than the infantry officer has to pay, the military duties of the latter are by far the most strenuous and require a very considerable outlay on clothing.  It would be, in my opinion, expedient to give the infantry officer more pay than the cavalry and artillery officers, in order to make service in that arm more attractive.  There is a rush nowadays into the mounted arm, for which there is a plethora of candidates.  These arms will always be well supplied with officers.  Their greater attractiveness must be counterbalanced by special advantages offered by the infantry service.  By no other means can we be sure of having sufficient officers in the chief arm.