Matt wrote on 28 jun 2013 in soc.genealogy.britain: I wrote: >> > Did the American army conscript foreign citizens? >> >> > On Friday, 28 June 2013 10:58:24 UTC+1, Evertjan. wrote: >> Yes, in/from? 1942, however the foreign citizenship was not the point, >> their US-residency and not having the US citizenship are, methinks. [..] > I'd have thought being a foreign citizen was the entire point! No, US law is not interested in what residents and others have for foreign nationalities [perhaps] in addition to the us-citizenship. US-law has this in common with many if not most other laws. Perhaps you wrongly read "foreign citizen" as "not-us"?? -- Evertjan. The Netherlands. (Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

On 07/03/2013 22:01, Tickettyboo wrote: > https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1951-25941-12055-68?cc=1968530&wc=M9MT-2HP:1046484211 > > > Link will take you to a WW1 draft registration card on Family Search. > Its section 12 I am having trouble with, the reason for claiming > exemption from draft. The first word appears to be Yes: and then after > that, maybe Seminal but the last word has me defeated. If anyone can > make the letters out I could have a stab at finding out what it means. > > (not that it impressed the army, he was enlisted less than a month later > and served till July 1919) seminal hemospermia?

On Fri, 28 Jun 2013 08:10:55 +0100, Renia <renia@otenet.gr> wrote: >On 27/06/2013 19:36, Lesley Robertson wrote: >> "Tickettyboo" wrote in message news:apsh1bF5mgdU1@mid.individual.net... >> >> https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1951-25941-12055-68?cc=1968530&wc=M9MT-2HP:1046484211 >> >> >> >> Link will take you to a WW1 draft registration card on Family Search. >> Its section 12 I am having trouble with, the reason for claiming >> exemption from draft. The first word appears to be Yes: and then after >> that, maybe Seminal but the last word has me defeated. If anyone can >> make the letters out I could have a stab at finding out what it means. >> >> (not that it impressed the army, he was enlisted less than a month >> later and served till July 1919) . >It's "Seminal Weakness" (an involuntary discharge of semen during >sleep). Oo-er! I'll accept that; earlier I had campaigned for "seminal waterous" but my "t" could well be a "k". "Weakness" might be more age appropriate for a 21 year old and more embarrassing than watery semen. -- Don donsgenes@charter.net

On 28/06/2013 14:11, Tony Proctor wrote: > "Renia" <renia@otenet.gr> wrote in message > news:kqjcu3$hif$1@speranza.aioe.org... >> On 27/06/2013 19:36, Lesley Robertson wrote: >>> "Tickettyboo" wrote in message >>> news:apsh1bF5mgdU1@mid.individual.net... >>> >>> https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1951-25941-12055-68?cc=1968530&wc=M9MT-2HP:1046484211 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Link will take you to a WW1 draft registration card on Family Search. >>> Its section 12 I am having trouble with, the reason for claiming >>> exemption from draft. The first word appears to be Yes: and then >>> after that, maybe Seminal but the last word has me defeated. If >>> anyone can make the letters out I could have a stab at finding >>> out what it means. >>> >>> (not that it impressed the army, he was enlisted less than a >>> month later and served till July 1919) >> >> >> It's "Seminal Weakness" (an involuntary discharge of semen during >> sleep). Oo-er! >> > > I must admit that to me it looks very much like "Hiaticus", although > that doesn't mean anything as far as I can see. > > Did you mean that "seminal hiatus" was a term for "seminal weakness", > Renia, or that you actually see "weakness" in that handwriting? The first word is "Seminal". The second word is "Weakness". Seminal Weakness is a recognised medical term. The second word does NOT begin with an "H". Look at the "H" in Henry at the top of the document. They are quite different. The beginning of this first letter of the second word looks a bit like a 2, which is very similar to the 2-shape of the beginning of the surname "Winslow" in the signature of the registrar on the other page. The fourth letter is no a "T", because it is too short. This fancy and determined writer is consistent in writing a tall "T" with a strong cross. It is similar to the "K" in Brunswick, but without the flourish. The second letter is a closed "E", a reverse 3-shape like some of the others. The third letter is clearly an "A". So we have "Weak...s" which can only be "Weakness". As I said, "Seminal Weakness" means "an involuntary discharge of semen during sleep", which I can't imagine anyone admitting to!

"Renia" <renia@otenet.gr> wrote in message news:kqjcu3$hif$1@speranza.aioe.org... > On 27/06/2013 19:36, Lesley Robertson wrote: >> "Tickettyboo" wrote in message news:apsh1bF5mgdU1@mid.individual.net... >> >> https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1951-25941-12055-68?cc=1968530&wc=M9MT-2HP:1046484211 >> >> >> >> Link will take you to a WW1 draft registration card on Family Search. >> Its section 12 I am having trouble with, the reason for claiming >> exemption from draft. The first word appears to be Yes: and then after >> that, maybe Seminal but the last word has me defeated. If anyone can >> make the letters out I could have a stab at finding out what it means. >> >> (not that it impressed the army, he was enlisted less than a month >> later and served till July 1919) > > > It's "Seminal Weakness" (an involuntary discharge of semen during sleep). > Oo-er! > I must admit that to me it looks very much like "Hiaticus", although that doesn't mean anything as far as I can see. Did you mean that "seminal hiatus" was a term for "seminal weakness", Renia, or that you actually see "weakness" in that handwriting? Tony Proctor

wrote on 28 jun 2013 in soc.genealogy.britain: > Did the American army conscript foreign citizens? Yes, in/from? 1942, however the foreign citizenship was not the point, their US-residency and not having the US citizenship are, methinks. -- Evertjan. The Netherlands. (Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

> >> > Did the American army conscript foreign citizens? > > > > On Friday, 28 June 2013 10:58:24 UTC+1, Evertjan. wrote: > >> Yes, in/from? 1942, however the foreign citizenship was not the point, > >> their US-residency and not having the US citizenship are, methinks. > > > > I'd have thought being a foreign citizen was the entire point! > > > On Friday, 28 June 2013 16:09:54 UTC+1, Evertjan. wrote: > No, US law is not interested in what residents and others have for foreign > nationalities [perhaps] in addition to the us-citizenship. > US-law has this in common with many if not most other laws. > Perhaps you wrongly read "foreign citizen" as "not-us"?? I think you must not have read my last post. In 1917, when Charlie Henry was drafted, the law in force in America was the Selective Service Act of 1917. This permitted non-US citizens to be conscripted only if they had started the process of applying for US citizenship - it specifically exempted non-US citizens from conscription if they had not begun the process (ie if they were 'non-declarants'). According to his draft card Charlie Henry was a non-declarant British citizen who in 1917 was living just a short way across the border from his Canadian birthplace, yet was conscripted into the American army. It would be interesting to know more about the circumstances of his conscription. Matt Tompkins

On 27/06/2013 19:36, Lesley Robertson wrote: > "Tickettyboo" wrote in message news:apsh1bF5mgdU1@mid.individual.net... > > https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1951-25941-12055-68?cc=1968530&wc=M9MT-2HP:1046484211 > > > > Link will take you to a WW1 draft registration card on Family Search. > Its section 12 I am having trouble with, the reason for claiming > exemption from draft. The first word appears to be Yes: and then after > that, maybe Seminal but the last word has me defeated. If anyone can > make the letters out I could have a stab at finding out what it means. > > (not that it impressed the army, he was enlisted less than a month > later and served till July 1919) It's "Seminal Weakness" (an involuntary discharge of semen during sleep). Oo-er!

On 27/06/2013 21:51, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: > It'd be an interesting question if you managed to sneak an image > somewhere where photography is forbidden: I rather suspect that you'd be > in the clear on strictly copyright grounds, though you could perhaps be > sued for loss of income or something. I think. Correct on both counts. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>

On 27/06/2013 21:51, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: > [] >> Copyright on the original work is until 70 years after the author's >> death. If you extract information from the text, putting it into your > > I'm not sure if things are different when the "author" is a body, or a > public body, rather than an individual. (Or an individual doing work for > a body.) > Yup, 70 years after publication in that case. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>

On 6/28/2013 6:48 AM, mllt1@le.ac.uk wrote: >>> Did the American army conscript foreign citizens? >> > On Friday, 28 June 2013 10:58:24 UTC+1, Evertjan. wrote: >> Yes, in/from? 1942, however the foreign citizenship was not the point, >> their US-residency and not having the US citizenship are, methinks. > > I'd have thought being a foreign citizen was the entire point! > I would have thought that, too - but in the 60s, the English husband of an American friend, was drafted by the US.

> >>> Did the American army conscript foreign citizens? > >> > > > On Friday, 28 June 2013 10:58:24 UTC+1, Evertjan. wrote: > >> Yes, in/from? 1942, however the foreign citizenship was not the point, > >> their US-residency and not having the US citizenship are, methinks. > > > > On 6/28/2013 6:48 AM, Matt Tompkins wrote: > > I'd have thought being a foreign citizen was the entire point! > > > On Friday, 28 June 2013 12:21:21 UTC+1, S Viemeister wrote: > I would have thought that, too - but in the 60s, the English husband of > an American friend, was drafted by the US. As so often, google provides the answer - there is a detailed account of the conscription of foreign citizens into the American army in WW1 in NG Ford, Americans All!: Foreign-born Soldiers in World War I (Texas, 2009). It seems America accepted the usual principle that states may only conscript their own citizens, but extended the category of US citizens to include immigrants who had applied to become citizens and were waiting out the statutory period of 5 years' residence before citizenship could be granted (called 'declarants'). Foreign citizens who had not applied ('non-declarants') were specifically exempted, however though they were very nearly included - there was considerable pressure for them to be included (senator G.E. Chamberlain, chairman of the Senate Military Affairs Committee, even tabled a bill empowering military courts-martial to order the execution by firing squad of non-declarant foreign citizens who refused to be drafted - a later version which substituted deportation as the penalty actually passed through the House of Representatives before being stopped in the Senate after the government pointed out that it would expose Americans living or travelling overseas to retaliatory conscription or deportation). Charlie Henry's draft card shows that he was a non-declarant, and so he should never have been conscripted. He might nevertheless have volunteered - over 190,000 non-declarant foreign citizens did - though it is also possible that he was simply railroaded into the army by an over-eager draft board - more than 80,000 non-declarants were illegally conscripted, causing diplomatic spats with 34 foreign governments who objected to their citizens being conscripted into a foreign army. Some neutral foreign governments even objected to their declarant citizens being conscripted, and at the end of the war the law had to be changed to permit declarants to withdraw their application for citizenship and be thereby released from the draft. Allied governments also objected and agreements had to be concluded with them allowing their citizens to choose to serve in their own armies - 48,000 Britons chose to join the British Army, for example. Charlie Henry appears not to have availed himself of this, however, though perhaps for him the treaty with Britain came too late - it was only concluded in late 1918. Matt Tompkins

> > Did the American army conscript foreign citizens? > > On Friday, 28 June 2013 10:58:24 UTC+1, Evertjan. wrote: > Yes, in/from? 1942, however the foreign citizenship was not the point, > their US-residency and not having the US citizenship are, methinks. > > Evertjan. > The Netherlands. I'd have thought being a foreign citizen was the entire point! Matt

On Thursday, 7 March 2013 22:01:15 UTC, Tickettyboo wrote: > https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1951-25941-12055-68?cc=1968530&wc=M9MT-2HP:1046484211 > > Link will take you to a WW1 draft registration card on Family Search. > > Its section 12 I am having trouble with, the reason for claiming > exemption from draft. The first word appears to be Yes: and then after > that, maybe Seminal but the last word has me defeated. If anyone can > make the letters out I could have a stab at finding out what it means. > > (not that it impressed the army, he was enlisted less than a month > later and served till July 1919) > > Tickettyboo How did a Canadian come to be subject to the draft procedure at all? Did the American army conscript foreign citizens? Matt Tompkins

On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 22:33:29 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote: >In message <htaps8d0hse85n2ti416hqlpjf7gi0bbbc@4ax.com>, Charles Ellson ><ce11son@yahoo.ca> writes: >>On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 21:51:09 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" >><G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> >>>In message <51cc89ca$0$15953$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>, Lesley Robertson >>><l.a.robertson@tnw.tudelft.nl> writes: >>>[] >>>>Copyright on the original work is until 70 years after the author's >>>>death. If you extract information from the text, putting it into your >>> >>>I'm not sure if things are different when the "author" is a body, or a >>>public body, rather than an individual. (Or an individual doing work for >>>a body.) >>> >>They are; with a corporate entity the copyright clock starts ticking >>at the time of publication. >[] >Has it actually been established when "publication" is for something >like a page of a register or similar, where there's only the one copy >(or possibly two or three)? > Subject to further tweaks for particular circumstances, s.175 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 Act starts with :- Meaning of publication and commercial publication. (1)In this Part “publication”, in relation to a work— (a)means the issue of copies to the public, and (b)includes, in the case of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, making it available to the public by means of an electronic retrieval system; [........] followed by various exceptions and by succeeeding sections which generally seem to return to s.175 for the meaning. 1(a) by itself seems to be the core spirit of the meaning. The Interpretation Acts deem that unless said otherwise the plural case includes the singular and vice versa so (assuming the 1988 Act to be applicable) publication of an entry in a register page takes place as soon as someone outwith the sphere of the relevant GRO is supplied with a certified true copy or an image of the entry. With marriage registers it will be almost certain that a copy has been issued very soon after the event but with birth registrations it was common in previous times for only a short extract to be issued and such a document is not a copy of the register entry but of some of the details contained in it; with death registrations it will be fairly certain that a copy has also been issued to permit the disposal of the body but possibly not so when civil registration was first introduced. Moving on to church registers (other than marriages) it is feasible that the entries (distinct from extracted partial details) in a register still in the hands of an individual church have never been "published" in the terms of the 1988 Act (assuming no further exceptions apply to them, maybe s.171(1)(a) "any right or privilege of any person under any enactment") but with the main churches in the UK there are probably very few such registers (apart from those still in use) not held in an archive open to the public.

Well done! I thought hiatus too - checked seminal hiatus on google and it took me to semilunar hiatus, meaning a nasal condition. In which case I guess the draft board would say a person was ok. -----Original Message----- From: genbrit-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:genbrit-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Lesley Robertson Sent: Thursday, 27 June, 2013 11:36 AM To: genbrit@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: Help required with handwriting please "Tickettyboo" wrote in message news:apsh1bF5mgdU1@mid.individual.net... https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1951-25941-12055-68?cc=1968530&wc=M 9MT-2HP:1046484211 Link will take you to a WW1 draft registration card on Family Search. Its section 12 I am having trouble with, the reason for claiming exemption from draft. The first word appears to be Yes: and then after that, maybe Seminal but the last word has me defeated. If anyone can make the letters out I could have a stab at finding out what it means. (not that it impressed the army, he was enlisted less than a month later and served till July 1919) */-*/- It's "Hiatus", I think. Lesley Robertson ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENBRIT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.3345 / Virus Database: 3204/6443 - Release Date: 06/26/13 ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENBRIT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

In message <htaps8d0hse85n2ti416hqlpjf7gi0bbbc@4ax.com>, Charles Ellson <ce11son@yahoo.ca> writes: >On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 21:51:09 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" ><G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >>In message <51cc89ca$0$15953$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>, Lesley Robertson >><l.a.robertson@tnw.tudelft.nl> writes: >>[] >>>Copyright on the original work is until 70 years after the author's >>>death. If you extract information from the text, putting it into your >> >>I'm not sure if things are different when the "author" is a body, or a >>public body, rather than an individual. (Or an individual doing work for >>a body.) >> >They are; with a corporate entity the copyright clock starts ticking >at the time of publication. [] Has it actually been established when "publication" is for something like a page of a register or similar, where there's only the one copy (or possibly two or three)? -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Bread is lovely, don't get me wrong. But it's not cake. Or it's rubbish cake. I always thought that bread needed more sugar and some icing. - Sarah Millican (Radio Times 11-17 May 2013)

In message <51cc861d$0$15905$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>, Lesley Robertson <l.a.robertson@tnw.tudelft.nl> writes: >"Tickettyboo" wrote in message >news:apsh1bF5mgdU1@mid.individual.net... > >https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1951-25941-12055-68?cc=1968530& >wc=M9MT-2HP:1046484211 > > >Link will take you to a WW1 draft registration card on Family Search. >Its section 12 I am having trouble with, the reason for claiming >exemption from draft. The first word appears to be Yes: and then after >that, maybe Seminal but the last word has me defeated. If anyone can >make the letters out I could have a stab at finding out what it means. I'd agree that it starts with H - it is similar to the one in his name at the top of the page. The middle word I'd agree as S_minal, with the second letter probably e just because that's a word (and I've just spotted that the e in "Yes:" is that shape too). But the rest of the writing on the page is sufficiently careful that I don't think it _is_ Hiatus, unless he mis-spelt it - there are too many loops, by two. Look at Victor, Portland, 11th, British, Fredericton - he always makes a t tall, and with a cross (though it slipped to the left on one of the Portlands). There's only one other s at the end of a word, in Thompsons; that doesn't have the tail on the end, but one example isn't enough to be sure. I don't _think_ it's an i; wherever else he's written one, he has put the dot on it, though often some way away! Heasterics? (Going against what I've just said about it being a t and him dotting his is!) or -eucs? -ceucs? -eax-? I keep wanting the first letter to be M, but from others nearby, it clearly isn't. Zooming in a lot, there does seem to be a pen lift between it and the ea/ia. > >(not that it impressed the army, he was enlisted less than a month >later and served till July 1919) > >*/-*/- > >It's "Hiatus", I think. >Lesley Robertson Hiasterus/Heasterus? -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Bread is lovely, don't get me wrong. But it's not cake. Or it's rubbish cake. I always thought that bread needed more sugar and some icing. - Sarah Millican (Radio Times 11-17 May 2013)

On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 21:51:09 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote: >In message <51cc89ca$0$15953$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>, Lesley Robertson ><l.a.robertson@tnw.tudelft.nl> writes: >[] >>Copyright on the original work is until 70 years after the author's >>death. If you extract information from the text, putting it into your > >I'm not sure if things are different when the "author" is a body, or a >public body, rather than an individual. (Or an individual doing work for >a body.) > They are; with a corporate entity the copyright clock starts ticking at the time of publication. >>own words, you create an original work on which you hold the copyright >>as it's your work. If you make a word for word transcription of a >>written work, that's the same (apart from the work involved) as >>photocopying or scanning it. It's the author's words, not yours and, >>within the time frame, still the author's copyright. Even if it's >>something as simple as a picture or table, if you don't change it, it >>still belongs to the author or the estate as their original work. >>Also, if the archive have made images of the original work to provide >>you with a copy, they can claim that they own the copyright on those >>images - if you could get to the original book and make your own > >Of the actual images, yes, but not the information contained in them: >the copyright in the text (or whatever) still goes from its original >creation. If you copy it out (verbatim) from the image, I don't _think_ >it's any different from if you'd copied it out from the original - it >wouldn't have any extra time added to it. Of course, the archive may try >to impose such restrictions as a condition for letting you have access >at all, but I have a feeling such restrictions may not be enforceable - >though IANAL, certainly not a copyright one. > >>images, it would be different. That's how people can claim copyright on >>pictures of things like the Mona Lisa. > >Yes, they can have copyright on their images. > >It'd be an interesting question if you managed to sneak an image >somewhere where photography is forbidden: I rather suspect that you'd be >in the clear on strictly copyright grounds, though you could perhaps be >sued for loss of income or something. I think. > >>Unless you have a brain like a corkscrew, it's best not to think about >>it. >>Lesley Robertson >> >> >Agreed!

In message <51cc89ca$0$15953$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>, Lesley Robertson <l.a.robertson@tnw.tudelft.nl> writes: [] >Copyright on the original work is until 70 years after the author's >death. If you extract information from the text, putting it into your I'm not sure if things are different when the "author" is a body, or a public body, rather than an individual. (Or an individual doing work for a body.) >own words, you create an original work on which you hold the copyright >as it's your work. If you make a word for word transcription of a >written work, that's the same (apart from the work involved) as >photocopying or scanning it. It's the author's words, not yours and, >within the time frame, still the author's copyright. Even if it's >something as simple as a picture or table, if you don't change it, it >still belongs to the author or the estate as their original work. >Also, if the archive have made images of the original work to provide >you with a copy, they can claim that they own the copyright on those >images - if you could get to the original book and make your own Of the actual images, yes, but not the information contained in them: the copyright in the text (or whatever) still goes from its original creation. If you copy it out (verbatim) from the image, I don't _think_ it's any different from if you'd copied it out from the original - it wouldn't have any extra time added to it. Of course, the archive may try to impose such restrictions as a condition for letting you have access at all, but I have a feeling such restrictions may not be enforceable - though IANAL, certainly not a copyright one. >images, it would be different. That's how people can claim copyright on >pictures of things like the Mona Lisa. Yes, they can have copyright on their images. It'd be an interesting question if you managed to sneak an image somewhere where photography is forbidden: I rather suspect that you'd be in the clear on strictly copyright grounds, though you could perhaps be sued for loss of income or something. I think. >Unless you have a brain like a corkscrew, it's best not to think about >it. >Lesley Robertson > > Agreed! -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Rule 46, Oxford Union Society, London: Any member introducing a dog into the Society's premises shall be liable to a fine of one pound. Any animal leading a blind person shall be deemed to be a cat.