Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-08-11
Citizenship-With Reservations.

In the ROSlka ScnWlmmer case Tie
! United States Supreme Court upheld
the Government for refusing to admit
her to citizenship, as Nine. Schwimmer,
an syowed pacifist, would not swear to
support and defend the Constitution
and the laws of the United States OF
America against all enemies" as re-
quired in the naturalization law.
But Mime. Schwimmer was Nine.
Schwimmer, and the decision of the
Supreme Court has not been inter-
preted as applying in every case.
Shortly after this decision the lower
courts denied citizenship to Rev. Doug
las Clyde Macintosh, who served as a
chaplain with the Canadian forces
served as a nurse with the British be-
hind the lines in France. Both were
willing to take the oath of allegiance
with reservations" But the lower
courts were not willing TO accept the
reservations. DR.. Macintosh said he
could not promise to take up arms in
event of war, because he could not de-
eide until he knew what the war was
about and it was obviously impossible
to know that in advance. Miss Brand
her personally to take up arms, and she
declined to swear unqualifiedly to de-
fend the Constitution,
The United States Circuit Court of
Appeals, in New York, reversed the
lower courts, however, and held that
the reservations were admissible, point
ing out some of the differences between
these and the Schwimmer case. Last
Saturday the Solicitor General an
nounced that he had directed an ap-
peal to the United States Supreme
Court, and the Government will fight
the case on through.
1t is plainly the duty of the Solicitor
General to appeal the case. The matter
ought to be settled. 1t is far better that
aliens, as well as citizens, should know
the dividing line between eligibility and
ineligibility to citizenship than that the
matter be left hanging in the air, as it
now is. If the naturalization laws and
eligibility tests appear to be ridiculous
or silly, the best thing to do is to test
them thoroughly and to find out. If
they are, the proper remedies may be
applied.
No one can entertain reasonable
doubt that DR.. Macintosh and Miss
Brand would make good citizens. The
only thing, apparently, that stands be-
tween them and citizenship is a strong
conviction, honestly expressed. To re-
tectiYe device against subversive doc
trinaires is to overlook the obvious fact
that the applicant for citizenship en-
tering this land for the deliberate pur-
pose of boring from within" would do
nothing so willingly or enthusiastically
as to swear glibly to an oath of ale
glance. To do otherwise would be to
thwart his purpose at the outset. And
as going to war does not depend upon
personal convictions as much as upon
the wording of the selective-draft law,
and as voicing convictions depends upon
the stringency of sedition laws invoked
in time of war, there does not seem to
be much purpose in putting such a
whale of lot of importance in the lit
eral acceptance of an oath. One who
is intelligent enough to form an opinion
and to stick to it is not such poor ma
terial for good citizenship, after all.
There is no questioning the right of
a Nation to lay down its qualifications
for citizenship and to allow the appli-
cant to take them or leave them alone.
But it is questionable, indeed, whether
qualities for citizenship can be gagged
upon the parrotlike recital of an oath.
When eligibility to citizenship is mar
rowed down to whether an applicant
will or will not say he will bear arms
in defense of the Constitution, a false
value is Immediately placed upon per-
sonal opinion or conviction. The intel
ligent and really honest applicant does
not know. And, other things being
equal, if he believes he would not bear
arms, that belief or conviction is merely
interesting, but unimportant. No oath
should bar him forever from the right
of intelligent dissent. The majority
opinion will always be able to take care
of the eventualities.