Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-07-14
Decision ON Naturalization
Stirs Conflicting Opinions

Reversal of the decision of a lower
court on the applications for natural
ization by DR.. Douglas Clyde Macln-
tosh, professor of theology in the Yale
Divinity School, and Miss Marie Averill
Bland, war nurse, is warmly debated
throughout the country. Both are Ca
nadians, and the United States Circuit
Court of Appeals in New York approves
their citizenship, notwithstanding that
they refused to pledge themselves I'M
qualifledly to the defense OF the coun-
try. Critics of the new decision believe
that the Supreme Court should consider
the matter.
The Circuit Court has erased mis-
chievous technicality from the processes
of naturalization" declares the Phila-
delphia Evening Bulletin, indorsing the
statement of the court that the rights
of conscience are inalienable rights
which the citizen need not surrender
and which the Government or society
cannot take away" The Bulletin adds,
The expectation that aliens desiring
to become citizens shall forfeit the
rights recognized as belonging to citi-
zens born in the country-that they
shall incur liabilities to which the ma
tive is immune-is unreasonable.
A different position is taken by the
Chicago Daily Tribune, which argues as
70 Tile case DSlOI6 Tic NOuIJ VI hppedlS
"A greater exercise of conscience on
the part of an alien unwilling to accept
full citizenship responsibility would be
to forego the privileges of citizenship.
If they are highly desirable, 1t would
be a conscientious act not to seek them
when unwilling or conscientiously un-
able to meet the terms necessary for
their possession and enjoyment. The
principle underlying these attempts at
L. II
nationality. The purpose is to break
down the ideal of country and patriot
ism by subordinating it to other and de-
structive doctrines"
r.
There are conscientious directors
who have something worth while to
give to this country" agrees the Youngs-
town Vindicator, land for barring whom
we should be poorer. Judge Martin j.
Manton'S decision admits them. 1t
may prove to be too broad and the final
word may have to come from the
Supreme Court, yet principle has been
asserted which should not be lost" The
Lowell Evening Leader points out that
If the decision leads to any complica-
ton in the future, 1t will be because
it apparently establishes the right of the
individual to decide for himself whether
or not war is Just" That paper con-
cludes that 1.-The trouble is that it is
difficult to make rule that will cover
all cases without working a seeming
hardship in some"
1t would seem that man brave and
honest and conscientious enough thus
to avow his convictions before the
naturalization Judge might make a
pretty good citizen, if our laws permit
him to become SUCH" in the opinion of
the Rochester Times-Union. while the
Madison Wisconsin State Journal COM
mcnts: Permitting its citizens TO voice
their honest convictions will never be
a danger to any nation. Governments
are improved by criticism, even if at
times that criticism seems unjust We
d. not believe that this Nation will ever
need TO fear that it will lack defenders
in case of war. Even people who might
before the beginning OF a struggle OPP
pose the conflict would stand by their
Nation when the final crisis came"
I'VE, are at a loss 10 KNOW declares
the st. Louis Globe Democrat, where
the court gets the. idea that conScien-
tioLj scruples relieve any citizen from
the obligation to bear arms If called
upon. That idea generally applied in
case of war might make 1t difficult to |
levy the forces required for the ener-
gency. We cannot believe the