HORNE'S DILEMMA

NZ Truth, Issue 604, 13 January 1917, Page 5

HORNE'S DILEMMA

A QUESTION OF NATIONALITY

A KNOTTY POINT FOR A MILITARY SERVICE APPEAL BOARD

Matter to be Decided by the Supreme Court

(Prom "Truth's" Cbxistchurch Rep.)

1 ■ -v ' "■■ ■ •. -' ' ■" The attention of the Military Service Appeal Board at Christchurch was occupied last Tuesday m consideration of the Home case, the history pf which was published In last week's issue of "Truth." William Templeton Home, who was drawn m the first ballot under the Act, appeared for exemption on the grounds that he is an American citizen by parentage and by naturalisation. Hofne's. citizenship has been a matter which has worried the Christchurch Court, military authorities end more than one- politician tor some considerable time, and as it was generally anticipated that the Appeal Board's decision oh the question would definitely label Home either as a subject of GEORGE V., OR, "UNCLE SHAM," an indication of the public interest m the case waa manifested m the number of people who were present on Tuesday to hear the appeal. The Appeal Board consisted of Mr, J. S. Evans, S.M. (chairman), and Messrs. J. D. Milton and E. C. Studholme. Captain Pilklngton appeared on behalf of tho military authorities, and Lawyer Wright represented Home. Mr. Wright submitted that Homo was not a natural-born British subject within the meaning of section 3, sub-section 2 of tho Military Service Act. Outlining tho legal interpretation of a natural-born British subject* counsel said it meant «a person born m the British Dominions, of foreign parents or otherwise, or born on a British ship, or perhaps on a British ship within the territorial waters of a foreign country. The literal interpretation of the Military Service Act's definition, said Mr. Wright, would leud to absurdities on tho subject of nationality and could not bo given effect to. For Instance, the, Act could not apply to a natural-born British subject who had 'ceased to be, a British aubjceL The Chairman; Under section 7, a man born of alien parents can bo regarded fts a British subject. Mr. Wright produced documents In proof of appollant'a father being a nat-ural-born American citizen. Tho Chairman: His Mons were born m New 55«Uand, though. Mr. Wright admitted, that appellant was born m New Zealand, but he pointed out that the American law provldod that a child born of American parents In o. foreign country, may elect to remain or becomo A CITIZEN OF TFIR UNITKD STATION when ho reached a certain ape. In Hios, when Hurnts wax IS years of a*?'*, he mude tho necosuary declaration before tho American Canmil. m Christchurch, and tho records wore now m court. At that time, Homo wan n<»t viii riiougii to takv tru' American oath of allegiance, but directly ho reached, the ago of 21, he constitutionally tool* tlit< neeejwnry onth. which constituted him tm American citizen. In further mipport of hl« argument, counsel «ald that under the old En/llsh common law, it was Wild down, thttt a person who was once a British subject, waa ulwayM v Hritlnh subject, but tho

Naturalisation Act, of I S7O, made a provision that a subject could lose his British nationality. That law came down through amendments, etc., to section 14 of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act* 1914, which was as follows: (1) Any person who by reason of his having been born within His Majesty's Dominions and allegiance or on board a British ship, is a natural' born- British subject, but who at.hku birth or during: his minority, became under the law of any Foreign State a subject also of that State, and is still such a subject may, if of full ago and not under disability, make a declaration jf alienage and on making such declaration cease to be a British subject. - (2) Any person who though born out of His Majesty's dominions is a natural born British subject may, if of full ago and not under disability, make a declaration of alienage and on making such declaration shall cease to bo a British subject. The Chairman: I may say I've seen tho correspondence m connecttbn with this 'matter and tho important point is as to the validity of what the appdllant has done. Tho point which occurs to mo Ir whether a man can got rid of his British nationality after he becomes liable Under an Act such as tho Territorial Act, m order to defeat his liability under that Act. Mr. Wright took up the atand that ttorno had taken the OATH OP ALLEJGrANCE TO AMERICA In 1908 before the Territorial Act came into force.. Counsel auoted tho celebrated case of Colonel Lynch, who, during tho South African War, become a citizen of tho Orange Free State and subsequently had preferred n'gnlnat him a charge of treason. Tho charge depended wholly on whether or not he could be hold liable for treason for changing his allegiance from one State ito another. Tho present case was said !to bo somowhnt difTeront from tho | Lynch case, counsel affirming Homo's rights as an American citizen duly registered an such at Washington (D.C.) lAt tho beginning of tho present war, baid Mr. Wright, notices wore published m the papers, calling upon American citizens to observe strict neutrality and, If after thoso notices. Homo broke his neutrality by being called up, I ho would bo liable to bo deprived of j hl» citizenship as an American. Mr. j Wright KUfrKP.sted that, the Hoard had power under station 'A to Plate a cu«o for tho Supreme Court 10 decide * nppellant'rt nationality. ■Tho chairman agreed that tho board i had 'that power. There was no appeal i from tho hoard'n Jurisdiction. i Mr. Wright: The ease lo one which J bristles with dlllliiiUivft, but appellant ; tm» become n citizen or tin* 'United j SiutCH tuul I 'nitwit Umt, — ! The Chairman: The only question Is whether ho hud autllHonUy thrown oft" hi» British nationality prior to his obligations arising under 'thu Territorial Act . If ho )um fiot iioim «o, e:in he now do it. to defeat hi* obligations unUor tbtt Military Service Act?

Mr. Wright: Sunposing you dlsmias the appeal, sir, and%e refuses to go to camp. HE IS AMENABLE TO ARREST AND COURT-MARTIAL. Yet his declaration of American allegiance is to all intents and purposes. in order lincl I have also .here his.omerj geney passport; ''from "the State Department, • Washington, for him to leave New Zealand for the United States of ; America. II! he was arrested as a do-' sorter, .what would be the position as to his nationality? The Chairman said he did Wot feel disposod to commit the board to a legal decision which might call forth a Note from the American President. It would bo the best courso to state a oase for decision m the Supreme Court, end the appeal would be adjourned for a month m Use meantime. Comment, of course, is not permissible at this stage of the proceedings, although perhnpa "Truth's" surprisemay be expressed at the fact, that while the appeal was heard nnd the cuso was' sent to the Supreme Court oh January fl, the military authorities seem to have ottered Horn© a permit to leave New Zealand for America, not later than January 4, five days before the appeal. Had Home accepted that permit. Ht looks as If the opportunity of him determining his nationality m the Supreme Court would have gone.