mitted to take all of your property. Do I so understand it?—A. I should consider it would have that right.

Q. And even, if needs be, in the governmental emergency, would you, if you became a citizen, permit the Government to take your life?-A. Certainly.

Q. Do you recognize the laws enacted within the provisions of the Constitution to be absolutely supreme, and to which you as a citizen, if you are admitted, are at all times responsive?—A. I would not want to evade anything.

Q. If you can imagine an emergency existing by which women are required to engage in combatant service, and there being no provision of the law by which you could ask for exemption, would you as a citizen, and do you now as an applicant, admit that you, notwithstanding any personal opposition to war, that you might be required to go into service?-A. You mean it would be the right of the Government?

Q. No. I didn't ask you that. Just read the question, please.
(The last preceding question was read by the official reporter.)
A. I don't know how to answer that.

Q. Very well. I will put it another way. You stated a moment ago that you recognized the responsibility of the citizen to be absolutely amenable to the provisions of the law, irrespective as to what the condition, didn't you?—A. Yes.

Q. And that a citizen must obey the law? A. Yes.

Q. We have a provision in the statutes at present providing for the Military Establishment and the National Guard, of providing that when persons are permitted to claim exemption from active duty, who are required to engage in noncombatant service, under the order of the President. Would you, if you were granted citizenship, recognizing the law, and that the law, for the sake of the question, is not changed, avail yourself of the privilege of asking an exemption from military service; is that what you mean? A. Yes.

Q. And if you were within the exempted class by reason of the conscientious scruples approved, or by reason of your being a member of a sect for generations opposed to armed conflict, would you hesitate to engage in any wise in the noncombatant service provided by the order of the President?-A. No. I could engage in noncombatant service.

Q. Exactly. Do I understand, then, that what you mean is that, if you are granted citizenship and the emergency does come, that you propose to avail yourself of the rights provided by the law of claiming an exemption from combatant service, but are perfectly willing to join in all forms of noncombatant service, under the order of the President and of the Government?-A. Yes.

Q. Then you simply draw the line, as I understand, that, in your present state of mind, as things now are, you feel that you could not engage in mortal combat; is that what you mean? A. Yes.

Q. Does it go even to the extent that, if I should be attacking you, that you would not protect yourself?—A. I should try to protect myself.

Q. Granted. And I were attacking you, wouldn't you take resources to yourself of all means to avoid my attack?-A. Yes.

Q. You would not hesitate, with whatever instrument might be in your hand, to repel my attack, would you, if I were attacking you?—A. I should try to repel the attack.

Q. Do you not recognize the right of the Government to repel an attack in the same way that you have the right to repel a personal attack that I was making upon you?—A. I don't know that I can answer that question fully.

Q. Do you not recognize, under our Constitution, not only the right but the duty of the Goverment to defend itself? A. Yes.

Q. The Government being a collection of individuals or of States, hasn't it the same inherent right to protect itself as the individual has if its own rights and privileges are invaded?—A. Yes. It has a right to protect itself.

Q. So then, that the only line you draw, Mrs. Webb, is, in the present understanding, not in stating that your Government shall not have every resource possible at its command, but that, as it effects you individually, you state to the court that, by reason of your opinion, you would take recourse, the law not changing, in the provisions for exemption of combatant service. Is that what you mean? A. Yes.

Q. But that you would freely, if the law continue as it is, respond to the order in all forms of noncombatant service, even though it took all of your property, all your time, and even your life, if necessary?-A. Yes.

The COURT. Are you able to take this oath of allegiance I read to you a moment ago without any reservation? Can you answer that "Yes" or "No"?

Or are you willing to do everything that a woman citizen has to do, except fighting?

The WITNESS. Yes.

The COURT. You would do everything else but fight; is that right?

The WITNESS. Yes.

The COURT. But you could not fight, and would not fight?

The WITNESS. No.

The COURT. If American women would be compelled to fight, then you would not do that. Is that right? Suppose the law should be changed. It is not that way now, and the law would be such that American women would be compelled to go to war to fight and bear arms. Would you be willing to do that with the other women of this country?

(The witness did not answer.)

The COURT. You do not care how many other women fight, but you consider it a question of conscience with you. That is it, isn't it?

The WITNESS. Yes.

The COURT. And on that ground you would not be willing to go to war and fight; isn't that right?

The WITNESS. Yes.

The COURT. In every other way you are ready and willing to follow the law of the United States and do whatever it compels a citizen to do?

The WITNESS. Yes, Judge Hoelscher.

The COURT. That is why you think you can take this oath of allegiance; isn't that right?

The WITNESS. I can take that oath of allegiance with my interpretation of it. The COURT. Because you think, as far as you can see, there is nothing that would compel you to do that which you can not do.

The WITNESS. No; there is nothing now.

The COURT. Would you please state your age.

The WITNESS. Forty-six.

The COURT. State whether you are single or married.

The WITNESS. Married.

The COURT. Do you have any children?

The WITNESS. Four.

The COURT. It all comes down to the question. What are you going to do with the Schwimmer case?

She

The EXAMINER. If the court please, you can not take an oath to support and defend the Constitution, in accordance with your own interpretation. says she will take the oath according to her own interpretation. The next person who will come into the court room says, "I will take the oath according to my interpretation." There is only one way to take the oath of allegiance, and that is absolutely and unqualifiedly, without reservation, mental or otherwise.

The COURT. I have asked this lady the very questions that were asked in the Schwimmer case.

The WITNESS. But you are asking me a supposed case. Now, women are not required to fight.

The COURT. I meant that I asked the very questions that were asked in the Schwimmer case. That case went up from the District Court to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, and that court, Judges Alschuler, Baltzell, and Anderson sitting, and Anderson wrote the opinion-and I like Anderson's opinion very much-but they took an appeal from that decision, and took it to the Supreme Court of the United States, and got another opinion, reversing it. (Questions by Mr. Jessup :)

Q. Mrs. Webb, are you willing, the necessities of the situation requiring it, for the Government of the United States to be defended by force of arms, and for the Government to avail itself of that means of defense, if the emergency does require it?

The COURT. That is not a fair question. You have got to put it to her, by her.

Q. Mrs. Webb-eliminating this other question, and as a preliminary question are you willing, the necessity requiring it, for this Government to be defended by force of arms; which you will please answer yes or no?-A. No. Q. What is that?-A. No.

Q. Do you understand my question?-A. I think I do.

Q. Let me put it to you again: Are you, and would you, be willing, if you are a citizen of the United States, and the necessity required it, for this Gov

ernment to be defended or to defend itself by force of arms?-A. I think I can say no.

Q. I will put it another way: Under our form of government, do you believe it ever right and proper that, in its defense, this Government should engage in war?-A. Perhaps in times past it has been, but now and in the future there are so many better ways

Q. Let us not confuse our hopes with our own opinions. I trust you are right, but let us not confuse or hopes. We are speaking now of the opinion that you hold as to the matter of a qualification for citizenship. I will ask you again, if citizenship is granted to you and the necessities of the situation require it, are you willing that your Government be defended by force of arms?— A. If such a contingency arose, I should be loyal to the Government, but I should greatly deplore the fact that it would resort to force of arms.

Q. We all agree on that, but that is not the question. This is a question as to your qualification for citizenship. In the light of what is indicated to us to-day, as to the extension of the privilege, and irrespective as to what you hope may be the future course of the settlement of international difficultiesthat millennium to which you look may be years in coming-but, say that you should be admitted at this time to citizenship, and almost immediately following, your Government would become engaged in war, would you be willing, the necessity requiring it, for the Government to defend itself by force of arms, and, in keeping with your own thought, after it has exhausted the possibilities and all other possibilities of settlement of the difficulty?

(The witness did not answer.)

The COURT. Here is the evidence in the Schwimmer case. given by Mrs. Schwimmer, that she testified: "If the United States can compel its women citizens to take up arms in the defense of the country, something that no other civilized government has ever attempted, I would not be able to comply with this requirement for American citizenship." That is what she said, and that is the question I put to her a while ago.

By Mr. JESSUP. My whole purpose is with an idea of trying to get what is the real fundamental state of her mind.

The COURT. It just seems to me that they require that one must be willing to bear arms actively, if necessary. You can not make anything else out of this case, can you?

Mr. JESSUP. Of course, I probably am giving undue emphasis to the other phase, which is evidently in the case, of the absence of the nationalistic feeling. The COURT. That is a little different. They don't decide it on that. They just say that in addition.

By Mr. JESSUP. Can't you answer the question that I put to you, Mrs. Webh? The COURT. Here is another question: "A pacifist, in the general sense of the word, is one who seeks to maintain peace and to abolish war. Such purposes are in harmony with the Constitution and policy of our Government. But the word is also used and understood to mean one who refuses or is unwilling for any purpose to bear arms because of conscientious considerations." There it is. I am in this position. I am under oath to support the Constitution and laws of the United States. This opinion in the Schwimmer case is part of the laws of the United States. Therefore, I have no liberty. I am not permitted to override. disagree with, nor to criticize the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States. Now, what am I going to do?

By Mr. JESSUP. I appreciate the position the court is in, but I believe that if this applicant given proper answer to the question I have already just put, it lays the foundation of her getting around the Schwimmer case.

The COURT. All right. If you can get around it, it is all right with me. Mr. JESSUP. Now, that you have had an opportunity of thinking over it for a few moments, Mrs. Webb, I will ask the reporter to read to you my former question, and I shall thank you to answer it either in the affirmative or the negative.

(The question was read to the witness by the official reporter as follows: "This is a question as to your qualifications for citizenship. In the light of what is indicated to us to-day, as to the extension of the privilege, and irrespective as to what you hope may be the future course of the settlement of international difficulties-that millenium to which you look may be years in coming-but, say that you should be admitted at this time to citizenship, and almost immediately following, your Government would become engaged in war, would you be willing, the necessity requiring it, for the Government to defend itself by force of arms, and, in keeping with your own thought,

after it has exhausted the possibilities and all other possibilities of settlement of the difficulty?)-A. I don't think I could.

By Mr. JESSUP. If the court please, I must admit. then, as much as I hate to do it, that I do not think the petitioner is entitled to the extension of the citizenship.

The COURT. I hate it just as much as you do.

Mr. JESSUP. I can not state to the court that she is entitled to it, that being her final attitude. I am very sorry to have to say that, and, although I admire her tenacity of position, and the high-mindedness of her own state of mind, I can not, under the law, advise but in the negative to a question that she would be entitled to it.

The COURT. That is all, Mrs. Webb.

And this was all the evidence given in the matter.

EXHIBIT VI

AMERICAN-BORN WOMAN ALIEN IN ARMS OATH CASE

WASHINGTON, May 2 (I. N. S.).-The novel story of how an American woman became an alien without going out of her native town in North Dakota and is now barred from American citizenship, because she will not take an oath to bear arms, will be told the House Immigration Committee on May 8.

Her case will be used as an argument for the bill of Congressman Griffin, Democrat, of New York, to permit naturalization of aliens without requiring an oath to bear arms for the United States.

Mrs. Mary Harris Boe, victim of the strange transition, in Iowa, married a Norwegian pastor of the Church of the Brethren, in Kenmare, N. Dak., and lived in that town for 25 years.

When she married a Norwegian, before the Cable act was passed, she became a Norwegian.

About three years ago her preacher-husband was naturalized as an American citizen.

When it was discovered last year that she was still a Norwegian, although born in America of native parents, she sought naturalization under the Cable act.

When Judge Lowe at Minot, N. Dak., was about to grant her citizenship an examiner asked her if she would bear arms in defense of the constitution. She said she would not, because it was against her religion.

LIABLE TO DEPORTATION

The United States Supreme Court having decided in the Rosika Schwimmer case that such a refusal was a bar to naturalization, she was denied citizenship. Thus she is still a Norwegian, although American-born, while her Norwegian-born husband of the same church belief is now an American. She is declared liable to deportation to Norway.

Congressman Sinclair, Republican, of North Dakota, will propose a special bill to give Mrs. Boe citizenship if the Griffin bill is defeated.

Editor CHRISTIAN CENTURY,

Chicago.

EXHIBIT VII

LAKE ARTHUR, LA., March 19, 1930.

DEAR SIR: Knowing your interest in all matters concerning the problems of a Christian applying for citizenship in this country, I have decided to send you the following facts, which you may or may not be able to use.

Last November I received notice advising me to appear in court for a final hearing of my application for citizenship. The examination proceeded smoothly until the judge came to the question of war, and here I will set down the gist of the conversation between the judge and myself:

The JUDGE. What did you do during the World War?

The WITNESS. I served for 3 years in the British Army, and spent about 15 months overseas in Salonika. [I showed the judge the discharge papers verifying this.]

The JUDGE. Supposing the United States engaged in a war that you considered was wrong, what would be your attitude?

The WITNESS. I would consider it my duty to protect and defend democracy. The JUDGE. But supposing, to take a concrete case, California wanted more territory, and decided to seize some in Mexico, and everyone was drafted for some form of service, would you object, or be loyal?

The WITNESS. I do not believe the United States would engage in such

a war.

The JUDGE. I do not want any conditions. war of aggression, would you object?

Under such circumstances, a

The WITNESS. In all probability, I would. I would first have to consider my duty to God, and to humanity.

The JUDGE. In other words, you can not subscribe under any and every condition to the doctrine, my country, right or wrong, my country?

The WITNESS. No.

What we want are citizens

The JUDGE. Then you can not be admitted. who are prepared to say, my country, right or wrong, but my country. And so I was rejected. What it means the Christian Century readers already realize; but for me it meant a bitter disappointment in democracy. Even now I can feel the shame of it. Yet what else could I do? There was no evading the questions, though I admit I did try to evade. It was only too plain, that, in order to be a citizen, I had to deny the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. The tragedy of the situation was that a Christian minister should be called upon to place God second and wrong first, if necessary. On a separate sheet I am giving further particulars, which need not be published. Yours truly,

T. F. KING.

The CHRISTIAN CENTURY.

DEAR SIRS: The clerk of the court is Mr. C. Pitre, Jefferson Davis Parish, Jennings, La. I appeared before the Fourteenth Judicial District court, which met in Jennings on Monday, November 4, 1929. The judge was Thomas F. Porter, of Lake Charles, La. T. F. KING.

[New York Telegram, April 28, 1930]

WHY A JUDGE DENIED HIM CITIZENSHIP

By Harry Elmer Barnes

Do we want citizens who will reason, or robots who will mechanically obey? This question is brought out sharply by the citizenship case of the Rev. T. F. King, of Lake Arthur, La.

Mr. King was born a British citizen. During the World War he served 3 years with the British Army. He went through 15 months of hell with the ill-fated Salonika expedition.

After the war he came to America as a Methodist preacher. He is now settled with a parish in Lake Arthur, La. He decided that he would like to become an American citizen. So he went before the Federal district judge with his application. The following dialogue took place:

Judge: Supposing the United States engaged in a war that you considered wrong. What would be your attitude?

Answer: I would consider it my duty to defend democracy.

Judge: But supposing, to take a concrete case, California wanted more territory and desired to seize some in Mexico, and every man was drafted for some form of service, would you object or be loyal?

Answer: I do not believe the United States would engage in such a war.