Newspaper Page Text
'“TF IM? ♦
JJeftesonian
Vol. 14, No. 22
AS everybody knows, the American colonists
“ waged a war of seven years to establish
the principle, that the Englishmen who colo
nized the New World brought with'them, and
[Were entitled to enjoy, the rights of English
men, as defined by the laws of the Mother
.Country.
Is it not so?
Look again at the celebrated set of resolu
tions which Patrick Henry wrote on a blank
leaf of his Blackstone, presented to the Vir
ginia House of Burgesses, and advocated in
his immortal speech.
The spirit of the colonial revolt was, that
the colonists were English, and could not be
arbitrarily deprived of the fundamental
rights of Englishmen.
Again I ask, is it not so?
Os course your mind will at once single out
the principle of “No taxation without repre
sentation;” but this principle was only one of
many.
Among the rights of Englishmen, claimed
by the colonists, were those of trial by jury,
freedom of and press, the sacredness
of the home from searches without a warrant;
the full enjoyment of personal liberty, of life,
and of property; the right to keep and bear
arms; the right to peacefully assemble; and
the right to petition the government against
existing or threatened wrongs.
One of the most important, most ancient,
and best established principles of personal
liberty in England was, that no Englishman
could be sent out of the realm without his own
consent.
Sir William Blackstone, discussing this
great fundamental principle in his Cmw?!-
taries —the text-book of legal students
throughout the English-speaking world
uses very strong language.
In paragraph 137, of Book I. the learned
jurist says, that “No power on earth
can send any subject of England out of the
land against his will; no, not even a crimi
nal!”
The words omitted by me from the line are,
“except the authority of Parliament,” and I
omitted them because, in England, the Par
liament was —and is—omnipotent, not limited
by any written Constitution.
The King himself, even in the most arbi
trary Tudor days, could not lawfully compel
an Englishman to leave England. The royal
power could restrain a man from going away,
but could not send him away.
In those days, soldiers and sailors were
voluntary hirelings. There was no conscrip
tion.
Even during the long, long years of the
Napoleonic Wars, lasting for nearly a quarter
of a century. Great Britain never conscripted
a single soldier.
Wellington’s victories were the work of
WAR QUESTIONS AND WAR ISSUES.
Let Us Reason Together.
Judge the New Laws by the Supreme Law.
Thomson, Ga., Thursday, June 7, 1917
volunteers. The French were driven out of
Portugal and Spain by volunteers. The vic
tors at Waterloo were volunteers.
The immortal Six Hundred at the Battle
of Balaclava, were volunteers.
The conquerors of India, of the Soudan,
of Egypt, and of South Africa, were volun
teers.
The four million Englishmen. Canadians,
and Australians who have saved France and
England from the conscripted hordes of ruth
less Huns, are gallant, patriotic volunteers.
England has not sent one single conscript
to the battle-line!
England now has a conscript law, forced
upon her by the treason of Catholic priests
in Ireland and Canada.
Those traitorous allies of the Pope and
Kaiser preached treason so effectively to the
Catholic French Canadians, and to the Cath
olic Irish, that these poor priest-ridden dupes
refused to enlist and fight for the salvation
of their country.
From the very beginning of the Great War,
this persistent treason of the Catholic priest
hood has been the source of England's weak
ness.
It was aggravated by the conduct of the
Catholic Treason-Societies in America, which
sent money, arms, and recruits to aid the
Germans in their attempted Irish rebellion.
Some of the' American* Catholics were
caught red-handed, and were justly con
demned to be shot; but Cardinal Gibbons,
Tumulty, Tammany & Co., prevailed upon
our Government to intervene and save the
condemned traitors, just as the same in
fluences prevailed upon the Government to
save the traitor priests condemned by Car
ranza.
The defection of the Catholics of Ireland
and Canada forced Parliament to exercise its
unlimited power, and to do a thing which no
English government has ever done since the
Feudal Ages.
Queen Elizabeth never conscripted a sol
dier or a sailor, although Spain's army
threatened from Holland, and Spain’s Invinci
ble Armada was sailing up the Channel.
The volunteers rallied to the country's de
fense, and saved it.
During the long wars that England waged
against the French King. Louis XIV., no law
of conscription existed.
The greatest statesmen our race ever pro
duced —men like Walpole, Chatham. Pitt,
Fox, Canning, Peel, Gladstone, and D’lsraeli
—directed England’s destinies in world-wide
wars, never lost a single one of them (ex
cepting our Revolutionary War,) and never
once resorted to compulsory military service.
Even when Napoleon had massed vic
torious legions at Boulogne to invade Eng
land, and the whole of Europe almost held
its breath in suspense, England never lost
her nerve, and never forced a single man to
the colors.
England's volunteers filled her armies, and
constituted her impregnable strength.
But while the Parliament of Great Britain
is not limited in its powers by written terms,
and can therefore legally resort to conscrip
tion, the Government of the United States is
the creature of separate, independent, sover
eign States; and while this Goyernment is
supreme within the limits of the powers dele
gated to it in writing, it has no existence out
side those limits.
To ascertain what those limits are, wo
simply appeal to the written limitations.
It may have become heretical to say this,
but I venture to say it. nevertheless.
When a written contract prescribes what a
corporation may do. it can hardly be treason
if I ask for a perusal of the contract.
If. after having read the Constitution, we
differ as to its construction, we can either
agitate against it—<as New England did dur
ing the War of 1812—or we can endeavor to
draw out of it—as the Southern States did in
1860—or we can go to law about it, as the
Railroads do. when they disapprove State and
Federal legislation; or as the millionaires did,
in 1893, when they indignantly resented the
idea of allowing a Democratic Congress tax
their Incomes.
In other words, when we challenge the right
of Congress to pass a certain law, it is our
privilege to appeal to the Judicial branch of
the Government.
We can lawfully ask the judges to construe
the contract, and to decide whether or not
Congress has exceeded its powers.
In quite a few instances, Congress lias in
advertentedly made an ass of itself, by un
dertaking to do what it had no authority to
do.
The Judiciary has been painfully con
strained to remind Congress of these instances
of mental aberration, and to run the Judicial
blue pencil through these asinine “laws.”
Os course you will understand, that in all
these cases, Congress has stoutly maintained
that it acted correctly, and that the Judges
were the mules; but it is not for me—a mere
worm of the dust —to say who was accurate
in describing the other branch of the Govern
ment.
All that I can be expected to be certain of
is, that the Judiciary blue-penciled the laws,
and the laws went to limbo.
This, as a concrete fact, left the Judges
very much on top.
Only a few days ago, the U. S. Supreme
Court had to chasten Congress in the matter
of punishing a citizen for contempt; and the
whole country listened with approval,
(Continued on page two.)
Price, Five Gents