The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-03-01

fourth, notwithstanding the parent ois- affirmance, & military or naval status is impressed upon the minor, until the en- listment Is annulied by military or civil authority, and leaving the service before discharge, with intention not to return, though with the approval of the parent. constitutes the offense of assertion, for which the minor may be detained from the parent and punished. though other wise entitled to discharge.
 For nearly a century, this conflict of opinion, among judges of eminence and courts of the highest authority. has vexed our jurisprudence. The Supreme Court has decided that the enlistment of a minor, when the statute permits him to serve with the consent of the parent, Is not even voidable a the instance Of the minor, although enlisted without the parents consent; and that the parent alone can assail the enlistment. It has not determined whether the enlistment is void, or merely voidable, as against the non-assenting parent.
 The maintenance of the authority of the parental relation Is of infinite concern to society. Government did not create the relation; for 1t existed In a state of na- ture. The law merely recognizes the re- lation, and regulates its reciprocal rights anu uutltS Hc Bchcl ai 6oNOt hoS no Jurisdiction to interfere with the do- nestle relation, as such. Congress may, however, in the exercise of Its power to declare war, raise armies, provide and maintain a navy. displace or subordinate the rights flowing from the parental re- lation, to whatever extent Il. deems neces- sary. When Congress legislates under these powers, the parents existing right and the State laws protecting and defin- ing it, are displaced or suspended no fur ther than the intention Is manifested in the Statute. Commonwealth V. Downes, A Pickering, 230. If after giving such statutes a fair and reasonable construc ton, in the light of their purpose, doubt arises as to the effect of prohibitions upon enlistments, made in furtherance of the parental right. that doubt must be resolved in favor of the parent. Silver V. Ladd, r Wallace, 21s; Ex Parte Flow man, 53 Ala, 40; Betchel vs. U. s., 106 Massachusetts, 70.
 Looking to the law of the State, of which the petitioner and his minor child are citizens, we see tha the rights of the parent are greatly venerated and valued. The law secures to the parent the rights to keep the minor at home. to have the comfort of his society. the aid of his labor, and the duty and pleas ure of training him. The will of the parent is made the law for the child. and for all who deal with him. The minor has no power. directly or indirect ly, to undermine the rights of parental control and custody.
 Turning from the State laws to the Statutes of the United States, which must dominate and control the decision here, | we find no intention to displace the rights | the parent, secured under the State law, | to the custody and control of any minor, under IS years of age. Congress has fol- | lowed the policy of the State, as to them, | by declaring that. such minors shall not be enlisted" without the consent of the parent or guardian; and to make the pro- | hibition more effective, subjects the re- cruiting officer, the Governments repre- sentative. to such penalty as a court martial may inflict for a knowing viola ton of the law in this regard.
 l Why does the law authorize enlist. ments in certain cases. unless 1t be tc create a military or naval status there | by? Why does 1t forbid enlist ments in certain cases, unless fl | intended no military or maya
 status should be created thereby? Phil
 pot v St. Georges Hospital, 6. H. l. 33S; H L. J. Oh. 72. Congress well knev If military status were impressed upor the minor. it would interrupt and inter
 fere with the fathers status. and tn,
 rights flowing therefrom. The command
 Is emphatic that certain minors "shal
 not be enlisted,'' without the parent | consent. Can 1t be doubted that the com
 mand was given, to prevent the minor acquiring any military status whatever | when ha faa consent? "A thing which Is in the in
 tention of the makers of the statute, f.
 as much in the statute as if 1t were fl
 the letter." Eyston vs. Studd Flow
 den, 465; Holmes V. Carley, n N. Y. l 290; Kirby V. United States, Wall. 4s2 | Congress deemed such enlistments pernI | cious and hostile to the public veal anC peremptorily forbade them. The law hay Ing impressed that Character upon thu
 transaction. 1t can have no other char
 acter in the courts. As said in Tn
 United States V. The Trans -Missour
 Freight Association, 166 U. S., PAS: "Wher
 the law-making power speaks upon a par
 ticular subject, over which it has con
 stitutional power to legislate, public pol
 Icy In such case Is what the statut, enacts." Upon reason and authority, tn, enlistment here involved is contrary tt puDIC pOIlCy, duu dDSOlutely VO1Q, as t(
 the father. In re Chapman, 37 Fed. Rep
 33O; Bank U. s. vs. Owen, 9 Peters, 527
 Kenne tv. Chambers IA Howard, 3S; Mil
 ler V. Ammeon, 145 U. s., 421; Birkett V Chatterton, 13 R. l.. 299. That the same consequences do not result in favor of the minor Is due to the fact that the statute discloses a contrary intent, so fal as he is concerned. It does not forbid his service as such, or regard 1t as vi cious or improper in itself. The prohibi- ton Is imposed solely for the protection of the parents rights. The minor, in the eye of the statute. is not harmed by violation of that right The minor, there- fore, may not invoke the violation of the prohibition. while the parent, for whose benefit the prohibition is imposed, may