Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

'“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