*

Validity. This section is not a law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, inhibited by the First Amendment. Selective Draft Law Cases (1918), 245 U. S. 366; U. S. v. Stephens (D. C. 1917), 245 Fed. 956; affirmed (1918), 247 U. S. 504.

Status of boards.-The boards which this section authorizes the President to create are not courts, the creation of which, by the Constitution, is vested in Congress. U. S. v. Stephens (D. C. 1917), 245 Fed. 956; affirmed (1918), 247 U. S. 504.

A member of a local draft board is an "officer of the United States," or a person acting on behalf of the United States in an official function, within the meaning of sec. 39, Criminal Code, making it an offense to give or offer a bribe to any such officer or person. U. S. v. Bordonaro (D. C. 1918), 253 Fed. 477.

Special tribunals, such as local and district boards, created by the selective service act, are quasi judicial bodies of inferior and limited jurisdiction, and have authority to hear and determine only such matters as the law directs. Ex parte Beck (D. C. 1917), 245 Fed. 967.

Members of local draft boards have no authority to waive any of the provisions of the selective service act or the regulations made thereunder. U. S. v. Finley (D. C. 1917), 245 Fed. 871.

In view of the regulations thereunder, this section, declaring that local boards shall have charge to determine all questions including or discharging individuals, does not confer on such boards the power to determine whether an individual subject to the act failed to register. Ex parte Fuston (D. C. 1918), 253 Fed. 90.

Proceedings on an alien's claim for exemption under the selective service act are analogous to proceedings before boards of immigration, and the applicants have an

Ex

unquestionable right to a fair hearing. parte Hutflis (D. C. 1917), 245 Fed. 798. As the local board is a public body, exercising quasi judicial functions in passing on the right of exemption, a court of equity has no jurisdiction to interfere with such a board's exercise of its functions. Bonifaci v. Thompson (D. C. 1917), 252 Fed. 878.

A relator duly certified into the military service by local and district boards can not obtain his release because he has convinced the adjutant general of his State that the examination by the medical officers of the local board was insufficient. The determination of the exemption board is final save for appeal to the President. U. S. v. Commanding Officer (D. C. 1918), 248 Fed. 1005.

The summons to a drafted person claiming exemption, to appear before the exemption board under sec. 101 of the Selective Service Regulations, is notice to him to present all the evidence he has in support of his claim. U. S. ex rel. Kotzen v. Local Exemption Board (D. C. 1918), 252 Fed. 245.

Under the Selective Service Regulations, local boards have the widest possible latitude in informing themselves of the truth or falsity of statements made by registrants, and such boards are not in any way restricted to what would be competent legal evidence in a judicial proceeding. Brown v. Spelman (D. C. 1918), 254 Fed. 215.

A drafted man ordered to report for service but remaining in hiding until after the draft boards were abolished may be tried by court-martial for desertion without a preliminary investigation before the draft board, as such investigation under a presidential order was a mere procedural step, the abolition of which does the drafted man no harm. U. S. ex. rel. Young v. Lehman (D. C. 1920), 265 Fed. 852.

Findings of local boards.-Civil courts have no jurisdiction to grant relief by habeas corpus against the orders of the draft boards unless it be made to appear that the action of such boards was arbitrary or capricious. The denial of a rehearng on a claim for draft exemption by a district board is not arbitrary action. Ex parte Tinkoff, 254 Fed. 222.

Local and district draft boards have the widest possible latitude for the purpose of informing themselves of the truth or falsity of statements made by registrants. They are not in any way restricted as to what would, be competent legal evidence in judicial proceedings. Brown v. Spelman (D. C. 1918), 254 Fed. 215.

Civil courts can not review and grant relief against orders of local and district draft boards unless it appears that such boards have acted without or in excess of their jurisdiction, or that the proceedings have been unfair, or show an abuse of discretion. Id.

A local board certified for service a Russian subject, who had not declared his intention of becoming a citizen and was therefore not subject to the selectivedraft act (40 Stat. 76). His claim of exemption and affidavit had been filed in due form and were undisputed, and he was denied a hearing. The board exceeded its authority, and its action was void. Failure of one certified for service by a local draft board, although not subject to draft, to appeal to the district board, does not exclude the jurisdiction of a civil court to discharge him from the Army on habeas corpus, where the local board, before making its order, had consulted with and obtained the approval of the district board, and the appeal would have been vain. Ex parte Cohen, 254 Fed. 711.

The applicant petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus. He had filed a questionnaire with his local draft board claiming exemption on the ground of alienage. The board considered his claim and placed him in class 1 as qualified for military service. He made an application for a review of his claim for exemption which the board refused. On this point a civil court is without jurisdiction to review the action of the local board on habeas corpus. Ellen v. Johnson, 254 Fed. 909.

The draft boards are purely executive agencies, and their error, committed against those who are within the draft law, is executive error in the enforcement of discretionary regulations. In re Kitzerow (D. C. 1918), 252 Fed. 865.

The decision of the local board and of the State adjutant general that a registrant is within the draft age will not be

upset by the courts where the registrant was given a fair hearing and no manifest abuse of discretion is shown. Brown v. Spelman (D. C. 1918), 254 Fed. 215.

A draft board classified a registrant in class 5-F upon his questionnaire; they were not satisfied with this classification, however, and gave him notice to appear and give oral testimony bearing on his right to deferred classification. He did not appear and the board reclassified him in class 1-A. He took no appeal, and relied on the original classification. Held, the court will not disturb the finding of the local ard. The statement of the registrant in his questionnaire is not evidence in his behalf, and the board is entitled to call for oral testimony; in the absence of such testimony it may treat the registrant as subject to draft. U. S. ex. rel. Kotzen v. Local Exemption Board (D. C. 1918), 252 Fed. 245.

Petitioner, a registrant under the selec tive-service law, was called for service by a local board. Thereafter he applied to the district board for deferred classification, and his application was granted before the time he was required to report. Notwithstanding this decision of the district board, and apparently without any new finding, the local board had him taken into custody. Why this was done does not appear in the opinion. Held, his petition for a writ of habeas corpus should be sustained; the court has jurisdiction to decide whether the district board had power to make a superseding determination; and the court is of opinion that such power exists up to the time of induction defined in the regulations, namely, the hour at which the local board has notified the registrant to report. In re McDonald (D. C. 1918), 253 Fed. 99.

on

On a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, it appeared that petitioner did not register the registration day, June 5, 1917. Later the local board demanded that he register, and being advised that he would be subject to prosecution if he did not, he registered, and later, under protest, filed with the board two questionnaires, partly filled out. In both he stated his age as 33 years. The board, after considering affidavits to the same effect filed by him, and other statements obtained by them, determined that he was under 31 years of age, and ordered him to report immediately for duty. He failed to do so, and was arrested as a deserter. Held, as the petitioner's registration card and answers in the questionnaires showed that he was more than 31 years of age on June 5, 1917, the local board acquired no jurisdiction over him whatever, and was without authority to

investigate, of its own motion, the question of his age, to place him on the draft list, or to adjudge him a deserter. The petition should be granted. Ex parte Fuston (D. C. 1918), 253 Fed. 90; compare ex parte Dunn (D. C. 1918), 250 Fed. 871.

A note to sec. 101, Selective Service Regulations of May 18, 1917, requires local boards to scrutinize claims for exemption on the grounds of alienage, and "before classifying an alleged alien in class V, to satisfy themselves beyond reasonable doubt that the registrant claiming such exemption is not a citizen of the United States and has not declared his intention to became a citizen." The burden is upon the regis trant to adduce evidence sufficient to satisfy the board of his alien age, and it is not the province of the court to determine the sufficiency of such evidence in a habeas corpus proceeding. U. S. ex. rel. Kotzen v. Local Exemption Board No. 157 of City of New York, 252 Fed. 245.

A United States district court has no jurisdiction in certiorari proceedings to review the finding of a local board. U. S. v. Rauch (D. C. 1918), 253 Fed. 814.

A bill in equity will not lie to restrain the members of a local board and The Adjutant General from requiring a registrant, who had been denied exemption, to do military service. The jurisdiction of a court of equity, unless enlarged by statute, is limited to 'the protection of property rights. The registrant has no property right in his employment. The district board is a public body exercising quasi Judicial functions under another department of the Government, and a court of chancery has no jurisdiction to interfere with its duties. Bonifaci v. Thompson, (D. C. 1917), 252 Fed. 878.

Questions of exemption on account of membership in a religious sect opposed to war are for the determination of local and district boards, and their findings can not be reviewed by courts, unless they are without jurisdiction or denied the claimant a fair hearing. Franke v. Murray (C. C. A. 1918), 248 Fed. 865.

Aliens. Local and district boards have jurisdiction to determine whether a registrant is an alien enemy, not subject to be drafted into the military service. U. S. v. Kinkead (D. C. 1918), 248 Fed. 141; affirmed (C. C. A. 1918), 250 Fed. 692.

The decision of a local board against a elaim for exemption as an alien is final where a full hearing is granted, but reviewable if a fair hearing is denied or if the board acts without, or in excess of, its jurisdiction or the proceedings are manifestly unfair. Angelus v. Sullivan (C. C. A. 1917), 246 Fed. 54; Ex parte Thieret (C. C. A. 1920), 268 Fed. 472.

Nondeclarant aliens.-Construing the selective-draft act of May 18, 1917 (40 Stat. 76-83), the court held, (1) that a nondeclarant alien is not automatically exempted by the statute. (2) That where a treaty is contrary to the provisions of a later act of Congress, the treaty is to that extent ineffectual, but the selective draft act does not violate any treaty which exempts aliens, for it recognizes the right of nondeclarant aliens to be exempted and provides a method for asserting the right of exemption. (3) That the petitioner, an Austro-Hungarian, waived his exemption by not claiming it. (4) That the declaration of war against Austria-Hungary did not entitle the petitioner to a release. That the findings of the local board are conclusive where there is any evidence to support them, and where a fair hearing has been granted. Mere general allegations of denial of a fair hearing are insufficient. (6) That before a petitioner is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus he must exhaust his remedies under the President's regulations. The petitioner in this case bad not done so. Consequently, the writ of habeas corpus was denied. Ex parte Blazekovic (D. C. 1918), 248 Fed. 327; Ex parte Tinkoff (D. C. 1918), 254 Fed. 222.

(5)

A nondeclarant alien, drafted into serv ice under the selective-draft act of May 18, 1917 (40 Stat. 76), will not be released by the courts on a showing that his failure to secure exemption as such alien was due to his ignorance of the English language. The act gives the military authorities the right to take for service every registered person in the United States who does not claim exemption or obtain discharge according to the manner provided in the act; it is mandatory and must be strictly followed. Lehto v. Scott, 251 Fed.

767.

A nondeclarant alien who was of such age as to be subject to military service under the selective-draft act of May 18, 1917 (40 Stat. 76), attempted to claim exemption as such alien, and also upon the ground that he had a dependent wife. By reason of his limited knowledge of the English language and the fact that his hearing before the board was hurriedly conducted, the board understood him to claim exemption on the dependency ground alone. This claim being disallowed, he was ordered to report for mobilization, and upon his failure to do so, he was arrested and held as a deserter. Held, that the action of this board, though unfair and irregular, was not vold, and was binding until properly vacated. The military authorities had the power to hold and punish him for desertion, but by reason of the irregular procedure by the board it should en

tertain his petition to reopen his case. His habeas corpus petition must be dismissed. Ex parte Romano (D. C. 1918), 251 Fed. 762.

Effect of marriage of registrant.-Where a registrant was married June 27, 1917, and there was no finding by the local board that the marriage was not entered into with a primary view of evading military service, the action of the board in placing registrant in class I will not be reviewed by the courts unless the registrant was denied a fair hearing or the action of the board is so manifestly unfair and unjust as to make it apparent that the rights of the registrant have been disregarded; even the fact that the court would have reached a different conclusion from that of the local draft board can not be held sufficient to warrant the court in holding that the hearing was unfair. Boitano t. Dist. Board (D. C. 1918), 250 Fed. 812.

Rehearing or reopening case. Both the local and district boards, within their respective jurisdictions, retain the power to hear and determine matters pertaining to a registrant until the hour specified in the notice of the local board when he is required to report for service; and where, after notice by a local board to a registrant to report for service, before the time arrived he was given deferred classification by the district board on industrial grounds, he could not lawfully be arrested and imprisoned at the instance of the local board for failure to report. Ex parte McDonald (D. C. 1918), 253 Fed. 99.

After certifying relator to local board for failure to claim exemption, district board has lost jurisdiction and can not find that his alienage was not established. parte Beck (D. C. 1917), 245 Fed. 967.

Ex

Where a drafted person claimed exemption from military service on the ground of alienage, and upon being summoned, under sec. 100, Selective Service Regulations, to prove his claim, failed to establish it, the reopening of the case rested in the sound discretion of the exemption board. U. S. ex rel. Kotzen v. Local Exemption Board (D. C. 1918), 252 Fed. 245.

While the action of the local board becomes final against a registrant under the selctive service act, unless appealed from within five days, a local board, having given registrant a classification to which his questionnaire showed he was not entitled, may correct the error some months later. Ex parte Short (D. C. 1918), 253 Fed. 839.

The denial of a rehearing on a claim for draft exemption by a district board is not

Review by courts.-This section creates independent tribunals to carry out the act, over which the civil courts exercise no supervisory power. Ex parte Hutflis (D. C. 1917), 245 Fed. 798.

Determination by local and district boards provided for under this act of questions of exemption is conclusive, unless the boards were without jurisdiction or a fair hearing was denied. Angelus v. Sullivan (C. C. A. 1917), 246 Fed. 54; Franke v. Murray (C. C. A. 1918), 248 Fed. 865; Ex parte Platt (D. C. 1918), 253 Fed. 413; Ex parte Hutflis (D. C. 1917), 245 Fed. 798; Ex parte McDonald (D. C. 1918), 253 Fed. 99.

Whether persons certified meet physical and medical requirements is solely a question for the exemption boards, and not for the courts. In re Traina (D. C. 1918), 248 Fed. 1004; De Genaro v. Johnson (D. C. 1918), 249 Fed. 504.

Where petition for habeas corpus and certiorari against a local board does not show petitioner has complied with act and regulations thereunder, or ever presented to local and district boards reason of ignorance assigned in the district court for failure to do so, relief asked against refusal of the boards to exempt him must be denied. Summertime v. Local Board (D. C. 1917), 248 Fed. 832.

A district court has no jurisdiction to review, on habeas corpus, the action of a local or district board, in calling to service an alien who has waived his claim to exemption and been duly classified for service under the rules in Class 1. Ex parte Beales (D. C. 1918), 252 Fed. 177.

As under sec. 61, Selective Service Regulations, a local board, upon a claim that through error or fraud a person registered who is not subject to registration, can only require such person to submit his claim in writing and transmit the same to the adjutant general of the State, mandamus or certiorari will not lie to compel the local board to strike from the draft list the name of one who claimed to have registered through error; it not appearing that he had submitted his claim in writing for transmission to the adjutant general. Brown v. Spelman (D. C. 1918), 255 Fed. 863.

Habeas corpus.-A person denied a full and fair hearing on a claim of exemption under the act may, if restrained of his liberty, sue out a writ of habeas corpus. Angelus v. Sullivan (C. C. A. 1917), 246 Fed. 54; Ex parte Hutflis (D. C. 1917), 245 Fed. 798.