Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-05-28
CITIZENSHIP DENIED
HUNGARIAN WOMAN
Supreme Court Holds Her
Pacifist Views Bar Plea
for u. S. Status.

Denied citizenship by edict of the
United States Supreme Court, RoSika
Schwimmer, erstwhile Hungarian, today
was a citizen of the world with no
sense of nationalism, but only a cosmic
sense of belonging to the human
family"
Six1nembers of the Nations highest
tribunal yesterday held that the United
States District Court Of he northern
district of Illinois was justified in re-
fusing to permit Nine. Schwimmer to
become a citizen OF this country be-
cause she objected to military service.
The court branded her as IAN uncom-
promising pacifst" whose lack Of ma
ticnalism "justif1es the belief that she
may be opposed to the use Of military
force as contemplated by our Constitu-
ton and laws"
Would Influence Others.
"Her testimony" the court added,
Clearly suggests that she is disposed to
exert her power to influence others to
such opposition
Associate Justices Holmes, Brandeis
and Sanford disscnted from the
majority opinion. A dissent, written
by Justice Holmes and concurred in
by Justice Brandeis, held that Nine.
Schwimmer holds none of the now
dreaded creeds, but thoroughly believes
in organized government and prefers
that of the United States to any other
In the world"
The dissenters commended that the
constitutional principle of free thought
refers not only to free thought for
those who agree with us but freedom
for the thought We hate"
Chased Self as Objector.
The majority opinion of the court
said that taken as a whole. her testt-
mony shows that her objection to mill
tary service rests on reasons other than
mere inability because of her sex and
age to bear arms" The court asserted
that "her expressed willingness to be
treated as the Government dealt with
conscientious directors who refused to
Gates she deemed herself to belong to
that class"
"A pacifist," the court said, Gin the
general sense of the word. Is one who
seeks to maintain peace and abolish
war. Such purposes are in harmony
with the Constitution and policy of cur
Government. But the word also Is used
and understood to mean one who re-
fuses or is unwilling for any purpose
to bear arms because of conscientious
considerations and who is disposed to
encourage others in such refusal.
"One who is without any sense of
nationalism is not well bound or held
by the ties of affection to any nation
or government. The burden was
upon her to show what she meant and
that her pacifism and lack of ma
tionalistic sense did not oppose the
principle that it is duty of citizenship
by force of arms when necessary to
defend the country against all enemies.
~ hall Of u
not prevent or impair the true faith
and allegiance required by the act. She
failed to do SOL.
Dissenting Opinion.
The dissenting opinion follows in
part:
1.-THE whole examination of the ap-
plicant shows that she holds none of
the now-dreaded creeds, but thoroughly
believes in organized government and
prefers that of the United States to any
other in the world.
surely 1t cannot show lack of at
tachment to the principles of the Con-
stitution that she thinks that it can
be improved. I suppose most intelh-
gent people think it might be. TO
touch more burning question, only a
judge mad with partisanship would ex-
clude the applicant because she thought
that the eighteenth amendment should
be repealed.
Schenck Record Cited.
"Of course, the fear is that If a war
came the applicant would exert scsiv-
tiles such as were dealt with in Schenck
VS.. u. S. But that seems to me I'M
founded. Her position and motives
are wholly different from those of
Schenck. She is an optimist and states
in strong and, do not doubt, sincere
words, her belief that war will dis
appear and that the impending destiny
of mankind is to unite in peaceful
leagues. do not share that optimism.
Some of her answers might excite
popular prejudice, but If there is any
principle OF the Constitution that more
imperatively calls for attachment than
any other 1t is the principle of free
thought-not free thought for those
who agree with us, but freedom for
the thought that We hate. I think we
should adhere to that principle with
regard TO admission into as well as to
life within this country.
And, recurring to the opinion that
bars this applicants way, would sug-
gest that the Quakers have done their
share to make the country what it is,
that many citizens agree with the ap-
plicant's beliefs, and that I had not
supposed hitherto that we regretted our
inability to expel them because they
believe more than some of us do in the
teachings of the Sermon on the
Mount"