Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
1506038
label
Truman Amnesty Board
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1506038
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Truman Amnesty Board
citationUrl
collections
Charles E. Goodell Papers
Presidential Clemency Board Subject Files
subjects
Amnesty
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
1506038
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1972-02-29
month
2
year
1972
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1946-12-01
month
12
year
1946
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
ad54e7f211b39c67
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 10, folder "Truman Amnesty Board" of the
Charles E. Goodell Papers at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Charles Goodell donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box 10 of the Charles E. Goodell Papers at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
TRUMAN
FORD
NATIONAL
SCRIPTA
ARCHIVE'S
GERALD
THE
LITTERA
MANET
REGIST
OF
VOLUME 11
THE
1934
STATES
UNITED
NUMBER 250
Washington, Wednesday, December 25, 1946
The President
All executive departments and
CONT
agencies of the Federal Government are
authorized and directed to cooperate
THE PRE
EXECUTIVE ORDER 9814
with the Board in its work, and to furnish
the Board all appropriate information
EXECUTIVE ORDER:
ESTABLISHING AN AMNESTY BOARD To RE-
and assistance.
Amnesty Board to
VIEW CONVICTIONS OF PERSONS UNDER
Y
THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE
The Board shall cease to exist, un
victions of p
ACT OF 1940 AND To MAKE RECOMMEN-
less otherwise provided by further Ex-
Selective Tr
DATIONS FOR EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY WITH
ecutive order, upon the submission of its
Service Act
RESPECT THERETO
final recommendations to the President
recommendati
by the Attorney General.
utive clemency
By virtue of the authority vested in me
thereto; estab
4
as President of the United States by sec-
HARRY S. TRUMAN
REGULATIONS
tion 2 of Article II of the Constitution of
THE WHITE HOUSE
the United States, which provides that
December 23, 1946.
AGRICULTURE. DEPAR
"The
President
shall
have
[F. R. Doc. 46-21944; Filed, Dec. 23, 1946;
also Farm Cr
power to grant and pardons for
3:17 p. m.]
tration.
offenses against the United States; except
Milk handling in (
in cases of impeachment,' and. in the
cil Bluffs ar
interest of the internal management of
Regulations
rules
the Government, it is ordered as follows:
Rice; set aside required
:0
1. There is hereby established a board
restrictions 0)
of three members, which shall be known
and milling (
as the President's Amnesty Board. The
TITLE 6-AGRICULTURAL CREDIT
20)
members of the Board shall be appointed
Chapter I-Farm Credit Administration,
FARM CREDIT ADMIN
by the President, who shall also designate
Department of Agriculture
Federal
interme
its chairman
banks;
:
2. The Board, under such regulations
Subchapter D-Federal Intermediate Credit Banks
functions:
as it may prescribe, shall examine and
General
PART 40-GENERAL
consider the cases of all persons con-
Interest and dis
victed of violation of the Selective Train-
PART 41-INTEREST AND DISCOUNT RATES
FEDERAL POWER Co:
ing and Service Act of 1940, as amended
ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTIONS
Consolidated Gas
(50 U. S. C. App. 301 ff.), or of any rule
hearing
or regulation prescribed under or pur-
Whereas, the substance of § 40.101 of
FEDERAL SAVINGS ANI
suant to that Act, or convicted of a con
Title 6 of the Code of Federal Regula-
ANCE CORPORATIC
spiracy to violate that Act or any rule or
tions; relating to the functions of the
Insurance of 20
regulation prescribed under or pursuant
Federal intermediate credit banks, has
commissions;
thereto. In any case in which it deems it
been incorporated in § 40:2 of Title 6, and
rules
desirable to do so, the Board shall make
the substance of § 40.102 of Title 6, re-
HOUSING EXPEDITER;
a report to the Attorney General which
lating to the supervision of the Federal
Delegations of fi:
shall include its findings and its recom-
intermediate credit banks by the Inter-
directives to
mendations as to whether Executive
mediate Credit Commissioner, has been
duction Admi
clemency should be granted or denied,
incorporated in §§ 2.1 and 2.2 of Title 6:
Nails, housing
and, in any case in which it recommends
and whereas, Part 41 of Title 6 of the
Soil pipe, cast
that Executive clemency be granted, its
Code of Federal Regulations is now en-
INTERSTATE COMMERC
recommendations with respect to the
titled "Organization and Internal Af-
form that such clemency should take.
Car service; susp
The Attorney General shall report the
fairs," while the organization of the Fed-
murrage rule
findings and recommendations of the
eral intermediate credit banks is de-
Commodities, un!
Board to the President, with such further
scribed in Part 40, § 40.1 of Title 6 thereof
Orleans, La.
recommendations as he may desire to
and not in Part 41:
SECURITIES AND E
make.
Sections 40.101 and 40.102 of Title 6
MISSION:
The members of the Board shall
of the Code of Federal Regulations are
Hearings, etc.:
serve without compensation, but shall be
hereby rescinded.
.American Teler
entitled to necessary expenses incurred
The title of Part 41 of Title 6 of the
egraph Co.
In the performance of their duties under
Code of Federal Regulations is hereby
Engineers Publ
this order.
Hudson River
(Continued on next page)
al
DRAFT LAW VIOLATORS-PARDON
terms, conditions, and qualifications set forth in that schedule and in
parts I, II, or III of that agreement, to all articles of the kinds provided
for In the said descriptions, except that no such rate shall be applied to
a particular article by virtue of this proclamation if, when the article is
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption,—
(I) The rate represents a concession identified in the list set forth in
the Sth recital of this proclamation,
(II) The rate is specified in item 720(a), item 745, item 806(b), or
the first item 1529(a) in part I of schedule XX of said general agreement
as set forth in the document annexed to this proclamation,11 or
(III) More, favorable customs treatment is, prescribed for the article
by a statute, proclamation, or executive order then in effect;
(b) The rates of duty specified in the 9th recital of this proclamation
shall be applied respectively to the articles described in the column at
the left of such rates as though the said rates, descriptions, and related
paragraph numbers appeared in part .I of schedule XX of said general
agreement; and
(c) Nothing in this proclamation shall be construed as authorizing the
application of any rate of duty or import tax computed on the basis of
the provisions of article I of the said general agreement, except such
rates as may hereafter be proclaimed pursuant to the provisions of sec-
tion 350, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended;
AND I do further proclaim that, on and after January 1, 1948, the
effectiveness of said proviso to subdivision (J) of section 304(a) (3) of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, shall be suspended, except with re-
spect to bundles of red-cedar shingles.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the
Seal of the United States of America to be affixed.
DONE at the City of Washington this sixteenth day of December, in
the year of our Lord. nineteen hundred and forty-seven and of
[SEAL]
the Independence of the United States of America the one hun-
dred and seventy second.
HARRY S. TRUMAN
By the President:
ROBERT A. LOVETT,
Acting Secretary of State.
No. 2762
12 F. R. 8731
GRANTING PARDON TO CERTAIN PERSONS CONVICTED OF
VIOLATING THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE
ACT OF 1940 AS AMENDED
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS by Executive Order No. 9814 of December 23, 1946,20
there was established the President's Amnesty Board, the functions and
duties of which were set out in paragraph 2 of the said Executive order
as follows:
"The Board, under such regulations as It may prescribe, shall examine
and consider the cases of all persons convicted of violation of the Selec-
tive Training and Service Act of 1940, as amended (50 U. S. C. App.
COIN.), or of any rule or regulation prescribed under or pursuant to that
Act, or convicted of a conspiracy to violate that Act or any rule or reg-
ulation prescribed under or pursuant thereto. In any case in which it
deems it desirable to do so, the Board shall make a report to the Attorney
General which shall include its findings and its recommendations as to
whether Executive clemency should be granted or denied, and, in any case
18 See footnote 12.
20 U.S.Code Cong.Service 1916, D. 1882.
1957
PROCLAMATIONS
T
in which it recommends that Executive clemency be granted, its recome-
mendations with respect to the form that such clemency should take
claimed
The Attorney General shall report the findings and recommendations of
to 155
the Board to the President, with such further recommendations as be
Preside
may desire to make."
IVIII
and
(a). tl
WHEREAS the Board, after considering all cases coming within the
been e
scope of paragraph .2 of the said Executive order, has made a report to
24. ch.
the Attorney General, which includes the findings of the Board and its
(a)
recommendation that Executive clemency be granted in certain of such
British
cases; and
ada, 01
WHEREAS the Attorney General has submitted such report to me THE
agreen
his approval of the recommendation made by the Board with respect to
Stat. 0
Executive clemency; and
lamati
WHEREAS upon consideration of the report and recommendation of
2395)
the Board and the recommendation of the Attorney General, it appears
(b)
that certain persons convicted of violating the Selective Training act
Britis
Service Act of 1940³¹ as amended ought to have restored to them the
United
political, civil, and other rights of which they were deprived by reason of
17. 19
such conviction and which may not be restored to them unless they are
procla
pardoned:
1S97
NOW, THEREFORE, I, HARRY S. TRUMAN, President of the United
the P:
States of America, under and by virtue of the authority vested in me by
WH
Article II of the Constitution of the United States, do hereby grant a full
agree
pardon to those persons convicted of violating the Selective Training and
Belgo
Service Act of 1940 as amended whose names are included in the list of
Kingd
names attached hereto [List Omitted] and hereby made-a part of this
and 1
proclamation.
tries
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the
5:12
excep
Seal of the United States of America to be affixed.
agree
DONE at the City of Washington this 23rd day of December in the year
Amer
you
of our Lord nineteen hundred and forty-seven, and of the Inde-
eral
[SEAL]
pendence of the United States of America the one hundred and
articl
seventy-second
WI
43
HARRY S. TRUMAN
the F
By the President:
TRAVOJ ATTENNEY
ment
ROBERT A. LOVETT,
birth
to
of
the o
Acting Secretary of State.
the E
the T
contr
No.: 2763
there
in
we
12 F. R. 8866
AN
1938
Act
TERMINATION OF TRADE AGREEMENT PROCLAMATIONS
the
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Becti
NO
A PROCLAMATION
of t'
WHEREAS (1), pursuant to the authority conferred by section 350
by 1
(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the act of June 12, 1934
here
entitled "AN ACT To amend the Tariff Act of 1930" (48 Stat. 943 and
2nd
944, ch. 474) 22 the President of the United States of America entered into
194
the following trade agreements:
of
(a) With the Belgo-Luxemburg Economic Union on February 27, 1933
T
(49 Stat. (pt. 2) 3681 to 3716). which trade agreement was proclaimed
Sea
by the President on April 1, 1935 (49 Stat. (pt. 2) 3680 to 3717).
I
(b) With the Government of the French Republic on May 6, 1936 (5%
Stat. (pt. 3) 2237 to 2290), which trade agreement was proclaimed to
[s:
the President on May 16, 1936 (53 Stat. (pt. 3) 2236 to 3201), and
(c) With Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands on December 90.
1935 (50 Stat. (pt. 2) 1505 to 1557), which trade agreement was -
21 50 U.S. C.A.Appendix, I 301 et Req.
22 19 U.S.C.A. § 1351.
1958
ForTramant
Dec
1947
GERALD
REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT'S ANNESTY BOARD
The President's Amnesty Board, established by Executive Order of
December 23, 1946, to review convictions under the Selective Training and
Service Act of 1940, as amended, and to make recommendations for Executive
Clemency, has completed its task and submits this, its first and final report,
Before adopting any general policies, the Board heard representatives
of interested parties and groups. It heard representatives of historic peace
churches, of the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America, leaders of
the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (whose followers are known as Jehovah's
Witnesses), officials of the United States Army and Navy, and the National
Headquarters of Selective Service, representatives of citizens' groups, veterans'
organizations, and pacifist organizations. Some of the violators themselves,
formerly inmates of penal institutions, appeared, either in person or by repre-
sentatives, and were heard,
Their recommendations varied from that of a general amnesty to all
violators regardless of the circumstances, to a refusal of amnesty to anyone.
To grant a general amnesty would have restored full civil status to a large
number of men who neither were, nor claimed to be, religious conscientious
objectors.
In perhaps one-half of the cases considered, the files reflected a
prior record of one O1' more serious criminal offenses. The Board would have
failed in its duty to society and to the memory of the men who fought and died
to protect it, had amnesty been recommended in these cases. Nor could the
Board have justified its existence, had a policy been adopted of refusing pardon
to all.
(OVER)
15,805 chocs consedered
-2-
In establishing policies, therefore, we were called upon to reconcile
divergencies, and to adopt a course which would, on the one hand, be humane and
violators
in accordance with the traditions of the United States, and yet, on the other
diminished
hand, would uphold the spirit of the law.
these have
Examination of a large number of cases at the outset convinced us the
the Board
to do justice to each individual as well as to the Nation, it would be necessar
restoration
to review each case upon its merits with the view of recommending individual
pardons, and that no group should be granted amnesty as such.
that in ea
Adequate review of the 15,805 cases brought to our attention would
of the cla
have been impossible had it not been for the cooperation of Government depart-
into which
ments and agencies, such as the Office of the Attorney General, the Federal
to evade S
Bureau. of Investigation, the Bureau of Prisons, the Criminal Division of the
training o
Department of Justice, the United States Probation Officers, the Administrativ
Office of the United States Courts, United States Attorneys throughout the
violation,
country, the Armed Forces of the United States and the Headquarters of Selecti
of all the
Service. The records of these offices were made available, and those in charg
sider not
furnished requested information.
background
The information derived from all sources was briefed by a corps of
wilful vio
trained reviewers, It included such essential data as family history, school
standing 0
and work records, prior criminal record, if any, religious affiliations and
other case
practices, Selective Service history, nature and circumstances of offenses,
the Armed
punishment imposed, time actually served in confinement, custodial records, pr
bation reports, and conduct in society after release, In addition, the Board
whose rec
had in most instances psychiatric reports and one or more voluntary statements
Government
by the offender concerning the circumstances of the offense,
tions of t
desertion
-3-
to reconcile
When the Board organized in January 1946, about 1200 of the 15,805
be humane and
violators of Selective Service were in penal institutions. The number
n the other
diminished daily. At the present time there are 626 in custody; 550 of
these have been committed since the constitution of this Board. The work of
vinced us tha
the Board was directed cliefly to examining the propriety of recommending
4d be necessar
restoration of civil rights to those who have been returned to their homes.
individual
In analyzing the cases we found that they fell into classes, but
that in each class there were exceptional cases which took the offender out
ition would
of the class and entitled him to special consideration. The main divisions
nment depart-
into which the cases fell were (1) those of violation due to a wilful intent
he Federal
to evade service, and (2) those resulting from beliefs derived from religious
sion of the
training or other convictions.
Administrativ
At least two-thirds of the cases considered were those of wilful
shout the
violation, not based on religious scruples. These varied greatly in the light
ers of Selecti
of all the relevant facts disclosed in each case. It became necessary to con-
those in charg
sider not only the circumstances leading up to the offense, but the subject's
background, education, and environment. In some instances what appeared a
a corps of
wilful violation was in fact due to ignorance, illiteracy, honest misunder-
story, school
standing or carelessness not rising to the level of criminal negligence. In
ations and
other cases the record showed a desire to remedy the fault by enlistment in
of offenses,
the Armed Forces.
ial records, pr
Many of the wilful violators were men with criminal records; men
ion, the Board
whose records included murder, rape, burglary, larceny, robbery, larceny of
tary statements
Government property, fraudulent enlistment, conspiracy to rob, arson, viola-
tions of the narcotics law, violations of the immigration laws, counterfeiting,
desertion from the United States Armed Forces, embezzlement, breaking and
(OVER)
-4-
entering, bigamy, drinking benzedrine to deceive medical examiners, felonious
assault, violations of National Motor Vehicle Theft Act, extortion, black-
mail, impersonation, insurance frauds, bribery, black market operations and
other offenses of equally serious nature; men who were seeking to escape det
tion for crimes committed; fugitives from justice; wife deserters; and other:
who had ulterior motives for escaping the draft. Those who for these or sim
reasons exhibited a deliberate evasion of the law, indicating no respect for
law or the civil rights to which they might have been restored, are not, in
judgment, deserving of a restoration of their civil rights, and we have not
recommended them for pardon.
Among the violators, quite a number are new mental cases
We have
made no attempt to deal with them, since most of them remain in mental insti
tions with little or no chance of recovery. Until they recover mental health
their loss of civil rights imposes no undue burden.
The Board has made no recommendation respecting another class of
violators. These are the men who qualify for. automatic pardon pursuant to
Presidential Proclamation No. 2676, dated December 24, 1945. They are the
violators who, after conviction, volunteered for service in the Armed Forces
prior to December 24, 1945, and received honorable discharges following one
year or more of duty. Most of those who, prior to the last-mentioned date a:
subsequent to that date, entered the Army and received honorable discharges
with less than a year of service have been recommended for pardon. These
have brought themselves within the equity of the President's Proclamation,
No. 2676.
The second main class of violators consists of those who
comply with the law because of their religious training, or their religious,
-5-
TS, felonious
political or sociological beliefs. We have classified them, generally, as
ion, black-
conscientious objectors. It is of interest that less than six per cent of
erations and
those convicted of violating the Act asserted conscientious conviction as the
to escape detec
basis of their action. This percentage excludes Jehovah's Witnesses, whose
rs; and others
cases are dealt with hereafter. Although the percentage was small, these
these OF simil
cases presented difficult problems.
10 respect for
The Selective Service Boards faced a very difficult task in adminis-
are not, in ou
tering the provisions concerning religious conscientious objection. Generally
1 we have not
speaking, they construed the exemption liberally. Naturally, however, Soards
in different localities differed somewhat in their application of the exemp-
ases. We have
tion. In recommending pardons, we have been conscious of hardships resulting
mental institu
from the factor of error.
mental health
Many of the Selective Service Boards did not consider membership in
an historic peace church as a condition to exemption of those asserting
her class of
religious conscientious objection to military service. Nor have our recom-
pursuant to
mendations of pardons been so strictly limited. We have recommended in-
They are the
dividuals who were members of no sect or religious group, if the subject's
Armed Forces
record and all the circumstances indicated that he was motivated by a sincere
following one
religious belief. We have found some violators who acted upon an essentially
ntioned date and
religious belief, but were unable properly to present their claims for exemp-
le discharges
tion. We have recommended them for pardon.
don. These mer
We found that some who sought exemption as conscientious objectors
Proclamation,
were not such within the purview of the Act. These were men who asserted no
religious training or belief but founded their objections on intellectual,
who refused to
political, or sociological convictions resulting from the individual's reason-
their religious,
ing and personal economic or political philosophy. We have not felt justified
(OVER)
-6-
in recommending those who thus have set themselves up as wiser :
competent than society to determine their duty to come to the di
Nation.
Some of those who asserted conscientious objections We
have been moved in fact by fear, the desire to evade military SI
the wish to remain as long as possible in highly paid employment
Under the law, a man who received a IV-E classificati
conscientious objector, instead of being inducted into the Armed
assigned to a Civilian Public Service Camp. The National Head
Selective Service estimates that about 12,000 men received this
tion, entered camps and performed the duties assigned them. Ce:
conscientious objectors refused to go to such camps on being aw:
classification, or, after arriving at the camps, refused to com;
regulations and violated the rules of the camps in various ways
against what they thought unconstitutional or unfair administra
clude
camps. Some deserted the camps for similar reasons. We may
CO:
acted
good faith. But they refused to submit to the provisions of the
Service Act, and were convicted for their intentional violation
There was a method to test the legality of their detention in tl
few of them resorted to that method. Where other circumstance:
have recommended them for pardon. But most of them simply ass
superiority to the law and determined to follow their own wish
law. We think that this attitude should not be condoned, and W
from recommending such persons for favorable consideration, unl
extenuating circumstances.
-7-
and more
Closely analogous to conscientious objectors, and yet not within
fense of the
the fair interpretation of the phrase, were a smaller, though not inconse-
quential number of American citizens of Japanese ancestry who were removed
vere found to
in the early stages of the war, under military authority, from their homes
service, or
in defense coastal areas and placed in war relocation centers. Although we
recognize the urgent necessities of military defense, we fully appreciate the
ion as a
nature of their feelings and their reactions to orders from local Selective
ed Forces, was
Service Boards. Prior to their removal from their homes they had been law-
lquarters of
abiding and loyal citizens. They deeply resented classification as undesira-
S classifica-
bles. Most of them remained loyal to the United States and indicated a desire
ertain
to remain in this country and to fight in its defense, provided their rights
warded a IV-E
of citizenship were recognized. For these we have recommended pardons, in the
oly with
belief that they will justify our confidence in their loyalty.
'S as a protes
Some 4,300 cases were those of Jehovah's Witnesses, whose diffi-
ration of the
culties arose over their insistence that each of them should be accorded a
oncede their
ministerial status and consequent complete exemption from military service, or
the Selective
Civilian Public Service Camp duty. The organization of the sect is dissimilar
on of the law.
to that of the ordinary denomination. It is difficult to find a standard by
the courts.
which to classify a member of the sect as a minister in the usual meaning of
ces warranted
that term. It is interesting to note that no representations were rade to
asserted their
Congress when the Selective Service Act was under consideration with respect to
sh and defy the
the ministerial status of the members of this group. Some time after the
we have refrai
Selective Service Act became law, and after many had been accorded the consci--
unless there we
entious objector status, the leaders of the sect asserted that all of its
members were ministers. Many Selective Service Boards classified Jehovah's
Witnesses as conscientious objectors, and consequently assigned them to
(OVER)
-E-
Civilian Public Service Camps. A few at first accepted this classification
after the policy of claiming ministerial status had been adopted, they cha
their claims and they and other members of the sect insisted upon complete
tion as ministers. The Headquarters of the Selective Service, after some
sideration, ruled that those who devoted practically their entire time to
"witnessing", should be classified as ministers. The Watchtower Society II
lists available to Selective Service. It is claimed that these lists were
complete. The Selective Service Boards' problem was a difficult one. We
have found that the action of the Boards was not wholly consistent in attr
buting ministerial status to Jehovah's Witnesses, and we have endeavored t
correct any discrepancy by recommending pardons to those we think should h
been classified.
The sect has many classes of persons who appear to be awarded th
official titles by its headquarters, such as company servants, company
publishers, advertising servants, etc. In the case of almost all these pe
the member is employed full time in a gainful occupation in the secular WC
He "witnesses", as it is said, by distributing leaflets, playing phonograp
calling at houses, selling literature, conducting meetings, etc., in his $
time, and on Sundays and holidays. He may devote a number of hours per mo
to these activities, but he is in no sense a "minister" as the phrase is
commonly understood. We have not recommended for pardon any of these secu
workers who have witnessed in their spare or non-working time. Many of t
perhaps would have been granted classifications other than I-A had they ap
for them. They persistently refused to accept any classification except
of IV-D, representing ministerial; and, therefore, complete exemption. M
of their offenses embraced refusal to register, refusal to submit to phys:
-9-
classification, b
ted, they change
examination, and refusal to report for induction. They went to jail
upon complete ex
because of these refusals. Many, however, were awarded a IV-E classifica-
, after some con
tion as conscientious objectors, notwithstanding their protestation that
tire time to
they did not want it. These, when ordered to report to Civilian Public
wer Society made
Service Camps, refused to do so and suffered conviction and imprisonment
se lists were in
rather than comply. While few of these offenders had theretofore been
lt one. We
violators of the law, we cannot condone their Selective Service offenses,
tent in attri-
nor recommend them for pardons. To do so would be to sanction an assertion
endeavored to
by a citizen that he is above the law; that he makes his own law; and that
ink should have
he refused to yield his opinion to that of organized society on the question
of his country's need for service.
awarded their
In summary we may state that there were 15,805 Selective Service
company
violation cases considered. In this total there were approximately 10,000
11 these perso
wilful violators, 4,300 Jehovah's Witnesses, 1,000 religious conscientious
secular world
objectors and 500 other types. Of this total 618 were granted Presidential
0g phonographs,
pardons because of a year or more service with honorable discharges from
, in his spar
the Armed Forces. An additional approximate 900 entered the Armed Forces
ours per month
and may become eligible for pardon upon the completion of their service.
Mase is
When the Board was created there were 1,200 offenders in custody. Since
{ these secular
that date an additional 550 have been institutionalized, At the present
Many of them
time there are 626 in confinement, only 76 of whom were in custody on
had they appli
January 6, 1947.
ion except tha
otion. Most
(OVER)
it to physical
-10-
TABULATION
Convictions under Selective Service Act considered
15,
Wilful Violators (Non-conscientious Objectors)
approximately 10,000
Jehovah's Witnesses
approximately 4,300
Conscientious Objectors
approximately 1,000
Other Types of Violators
approximately
500
Those who have received Presidential
pardens under Presidential Proc-
lamation 2676 dated December 24, 1945
approximately 618
Those who entered the Armed Forces and
may receive pardons
approximately 900
1,518
Recommended by this Board
1,523
AKIM, Alfr
Total recommended for pardon and who may earn
AKUTSU, Hi
pardon through service in the Armed Forces
3,041
AKUTSU, Ji
The Board recommends that Executive clemency be extended to the 1,523.
ALBRECHT,
individuals whose names appear on the attached list, attested as to its correct-
Alexander,
ness by the Executive Secretary of the Board, and that each person named receive
ALEXANDER,
a pardon for his violation of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, a
ALEXANDER,
amended.
ALLEN, Jam
ALLEN, Sam
ALLMAN, Cr
Owen J. Roberts, Chairman
ALSTON, Wi
Willis Smith
ALTER, Joh
AMATE, Ats
James F. O'Neil
AMATO, Jos
4.
AMBURGY, C
ANBURGY, K
February 29, 1972
TO:
Senator Edward M. Kennedy
FROM:
Chief Counsel, Subcommittee on Administrative
Practice and Procedure
Senate Committee on the Judiciary
President Truman's post-World War II Amnesty Board
Background Information
For mainly nonpolitical cases, in two respects the general
appeal of amnesty after World War II may actually have been
greater than today. First, a review of the Amnesty Board files
makes it appear that unintentional technical violations of the
Selective Service rules and laws were punished by criminal
conviction and prison terms much more often than I have the
impression they are today. Second, the Seeger and Welsh cases
were far in the future, so the definition of a conscientious
objector was somewhat narrower than it is today; many persons
who are not conventionally religious can now get CO status
though they must still, of course, after last year's Gillette
and Negre decision, object to war in general.
For political cases, of course, the situation is vastly
different because of the widespread strong feeling against the
Vietnam War.
One other background item is that the Amnesty Board was not
President Truman's first action in the field: about a year be-
fore he established the Board and about two years before his
amnesty grant, he proclaimed a pardon for all those who had
from 1941 to 1945 been convicted of violating a federal (civ-
ilian) criminal law but subsequently served at least a year in
the armed forces and were honorably discharged, with the pardon
applying also to those still in at the time of the proclamation who
later got honorable discharges. This action eliminated a fair
number of cases from those the Board had to consider seriously.
The Amnesty Board
Pursuant to the President's constitutional power of pardon,
President Truman in late 1946 established the Amnesty Board, which
existed for just under one year. It consisted of former Justice Owen
Roberts as chairman, with Willis Smith (subsequently Senator from
North Carolina?) and James O'Neil, our witness, as members.
2
The Board was to examine all convictions under the 1940 Selective
Service law and make recommendations for executive clemency; the
order setting up the Board established no particular standards. The
Board reviewed 15, 805 cases (I reckon that means about 60 per
working day if you spread it over a year evenly; I found no working
memoranda on procedure, but dates on case files were widely spread
out), noted about 1518 already pardoned or eligible for pardon under
the 1945 proclamation, and recommended 1523 pardons. The President
endorsed that recommendation, and the men were pardoned.
Criteria Mentioned in the Board's Report
1) No amnesty in cases involving prior serious crimes
(about 1/2 of all cases). My impression from the files is that
this was not follwed 100%.
2) Rectifying nonuniformity among local board treatments
of conscientious objector claims. The Board said it was not
trying to be strict but to look for "essentially religious be-
lief" behind objections.
3) Denial of amnesty in nonreligious--intellectual, poli-
tical, social, etc. objection cases, because these persons "set
themselves up as wiser and more competent than society to deter-
mine their duty to come to the defense of the Nation. 11 The files,
and the case summaries in the Appendix, indicate that the Board
often deviated from this rule when it found extenuating circumstances.
4) No consideration for those who had acted out of apparent
fear or desire simply to keep a good civilian job.
5) No favorable consideration, absent extenuating circum-
stances, for those who received conscientious objector status
but refused to perform required noncombat or civilian duty.
6) Favorable consideration for relocated Japanese-origin
citizens. There appears to have been something of a movement
among interned Japanese to say they would not serve unless they
were restored their full rights as citizens.
7) Distinction among Jehovah's Witnesses based on whether
they appeared to be doing full-time ministerial work or not.
The Witnesses all waived CO status and all claimed ministerial
exemptions.
Limitations Flowing From the Board's Jurisdiction
Since the Board was considering only cases involving con-
victions under the Selective Service laws, it did not at all
get into three types of cases we might be interested in:
1) Deserters. (N. B. 11 Deserters got no consideration
from the 1945 pardon either, since it was limited to violators
of federal civilian laws.)
2) Expatriates. I discovered a few cases of people who
had spent some time in Mexico, but they were being considered
only because they had been convicted after returning,
3) Domestic fugitives not yet convicted.
Nature of Most Cases Considered
Of the 15, 805 cases considered, fully 14, 300 were either
technical violators of greater or lesser severity--from deter-
mined, selfishly motivated draft dogers and serious criminals
down to those who forgot to tell their board of a change of
address (10, 000 in all) -or Jehova's Witnesses (4, 300). There
were about 1, 000 CO's and 500 others.
N.B.: It should therefore be recognized that opening the
question of amnesty may get us into considering huge numbers of
messy little cases of people who, say, just registered late. Nothing
necessarily wrong with that, but we should be aware of it.
Main Types of Cases and Policy in 1947 with Implications for Present
The following is based exclusively on my survey of the investi-
gation files and represents an effort to summarize the treatment given
to the several categories which the Amnesty Board considered. (The
files, incidentally, consist mainly of one-page summaries of cases
prepared by the Boards staff of reviewers.) I then try to comment
briefly on the relation of the policy adopted in 1947 to present considera-
tion of amnesty.
Conscientious Objectors
There were many categories of conscientious objectors, and their
treatment varied widely from one category to another.
Religious general COs with properly presented claims. Many
people seem to have been inexplicably denied CO status by unsym-
pathetic local boards and to have been subsequently convicted. The
Board seems to have tried to iron out disparities on a basis then con-
sidered lenient. My impression is that local boards are somewhat
less nasty today, but that there is still plenty of variance. The variance
that exists probably gets reduced by the courts more than it did during
the war as people fight convictions. Still, what remains strikes me as
likely being ample to justify consideration of amnesty even for those who
generally don't like the idea, and we might be able to use the argument
(with the double edge that it's both obviously right and has been done
before) as an entering wedge with the unsympathetic, and perhaps as a
way to get established a board with vague jurisdiction which it might
interpret broadly.
Religious general COs with some procedural problem. Many CO's
didn't follow all the rules and would, for example, refuse to have anything
to do with the System at all and therefore not register, or refuse alternate
service, or start alternate service and quit. The Board seems to have had
a mild presumption against these types, especially the latter two, but was
willing to grant amnesty in some cases if there were mitigating circum-
stances or the or the person impressed the reviewer with his exceptional
sincerity. I think we convict most of these people today, and since their
appeal is somewhat less than the previous category the precedent value
is helpful.
Religious selective CO's. For all practical purposes, there were
none in the files I read. One case of a Catholic wasn't clear whether the
objection was general or selective, and amnesty was denied. Such people
would be numerous today, especially Catholic "just war" theory objectors,
and are one of the very most appealing groups even after the Supreme Court
decisions last year in Gillette and Negre. There is, at any rate, no really
strong precedent against them, though the Board almost certainly wouldn't
have liked them if it had had to face the question. Better not ask O'Neil
anything about these--you'd probably get a lecture on how you can't pick
your war.
"Nonreligious" general CO's - within Seeger-Welsh criteria.
These men had little luck from draft boards, courts, and the Amnesty
Board. The Board showed some give if there were extenuating cir-
cumstances. Most of these people, provided they were willing to
register and present a CO claim today, would get proper CO treatment
under the Seeger-Welsh broadening of the definition of "religious."
There should be relatively few cases of such people as candidates for
amnesty today.
Nonreligious COs. Since the Seeger-Welsh line had not been
drawn back then, these people got the same treatment as the immediately
preceding category -generally unsympathetic, especially if the objection
appeared "political;" but the more the objection appeared general and
close to "religious, 11 the more the Board seemed to be willing to bend.
Many of these people are getting convicted or leaving the country today,
and like the religious selective CO's they constitute one of the largest
and most appealing groups for amnesty today. There is, however, a
fairly strong and square precedent against them in the Board's practice,
somewhat attenuated by their willingness to bend in appealing cases. If
you ask O'Neil any questions at all in this area, perhaps a good line
would be to press him on why they waffled as much as they did and
whether that doesn't indicate the case here is stronger than people often
think it is.
Expatriates
None were considered, except a very few who had left temporarily
had been prosecuted on return. They were not considered as a special
category -they fit in elsewhere, as "wilful violators" or COs. Considera-
tion of expatriates not convicted and still outside the country was outside
the Board's jurisdiction. There are no precedents here for one of your
biggest problems today, the expatriates -SSS violators and deserters
who cannot return because of citizenship problems or must at least face
prosecution.
Deserters
Not as such in the Board's jurisdiction, though desertion from
service after entering it subsequent to conviction would have been an
unfavorable circumstance. The Senator might be interested in teeing
off a little on the limitation in Taft's bill because of how it discriminates
in favor of middle-class intellectuals who know their minds before they
get drafted, as opposed to the lower-class people who find out the military
doesn't agree with them once they're in. Consistent with his stand
against the volunteer army.
"Wilful Violators"
This was the Boards catchall category for those who didn't seem to
have a reason like conscientious objection. They were treated pretty much
on a case-by-case basis, with a search made for mitigating or aggravating
circumstances. (See Appendix I for list of miscellaneous factors.) My im-
pression is that in minor cases we're much less likely to see prosecutions
today. If there is to be another amnesty, I suppose these should get the
same kind of selective consideration because many are rather blatant
draft-evaders. I think it would be wise to consider this before saying
anything which could sound like a blanket call for amnesty.
Japanese Internees
The Board really sympathized with these men and let nearly all of
them off, even including one who had tried (but failed) to renounse U.S.
citizenship so he could go fight for Japan. I found no cases of resident
Japanese aliens - -all were American citizens of Japanese origin and
nearly all refused to be drafted because their rights as citizens were
being denied. The only denial of amnesty I found was of a resident of
Hawaii, where I think there was no internment. I don't really think
there's any group today to which the Japanese analogy can fairly be
applied, unless we make the major extension implicit behind much pro-
amnesty argument that all refusers should be treated as the Japanese
were out of respect for their strong views - -as the Board put it, "we
fully appreciate the nature of their feelings" and "we have recommended
pardons, in the belief that (the Japanese-Americans) will justify our
confidence in their loyalty. 11
Jehovah's Witnesses
After a short period of confusion at the beginning of the war, all
Witnesses waived CO application and demanded exemption as ministers.
Most were denied by the draft boards and the courts. The Amnesty
Board tried to pick out those who were essentially serving as ministers
by working full time at it, and pardoned them only. I don't know if the
Witnesses still make the same demand or how the draft boards and
courts treat them. I should hope things have changed, but if they haven't
then I suppose the old policy still makes sense on amnes
Miscellaneous comments
The whole Amnesty Board precedent is very tricky - -it's
helpful in arguing there should be some amnesty, but not particularly
useful in arguing for general amnesty. The latter problem might be
gotten around somewhat by pointing out how much there were general
decisions for categories, especially the Japanese-Americans, and
suggesting that because of the nature of affairs now we might want to
make general favorable decisions in important categories, still re-
serving the possibility of case-by-case decision where appropriate.
There is a very uncomfortable problem lurking here for
many lawyers and civil libertarians. Insofar as amnesty is
based on the theory that it is deserved because refusers and
deserters and expatriates were right before a lot of the rest
of us were, you get into the problem of rewarding or punishing
people because of their political beliefs. The Supreme Court has
struck down punishment for belief in many contexts. Many refusers
in prior wars were doubtless very sinceree--are they, and future re -
fusers in some popular war, to be denied amnesty for equally deeply
held beliefs with little or no distinction beyond the fact that the majority
thinks their ideas are wrong?
Possible Questions for O'Neil
Operations
Generally, how did the members of the Board go about con-
sidering the individual cases?
How much time did you average on each?
Was there a great deal of difference in the time you spent
on some hard cases as compared to others?
What were the kinds of factors that would generally make you
override the recommendation of a reviewer?
Did you operate by majority vote, or by trying hard to reach
a unanimous consensus on each case, or how?
Did you treat differently the cases in which you were over-
ruling reviewers' recommendations?
Was there a systematic effort to go through and make sure
that there were not serious disparities in decisions?
Did you start out deciding on general policies for categories
of violators, or did the policies grow out of consideration of individual
cases?
(If it's the first in answer to the preceding question) Well, doesn't
that indicate we'd still be following the spirit of your precedent if
we made some general policy decisions about important categories of
violators now?
Specific areas
Why did you deny nearly all the Black Muslim cases?
Why did you grant nearly all the Japanese -American internee
cases?
(DANGEROUS QUESTION) Would you agree that it would be
possible, and understandable (even if you don't agree with him) for
an American youth today to feel as strongly and as unselfishly that
he should not fight in Viet Nam, as did many Japanese-American
internees whom you pardoned about accepting induction into the United
States forces?
How was it that your Board departed so often from its rule of no
amnesty for political objectors? (See Appendix 2 for list of amnesty
grants to such people.)
General Questions
Without regard to which individuals or categories should
receive amnesty, do you think there should be some system to
grant amnesty to at least some violators from the Vietnam War?
Based on your experience, is there anything you would have done
differently on the Amnesty Board in 1947, or policies from then
you would not follow if there were a similar operation now?
Appendix I
Listing of Factors Which Apparently Weighed in Favor of or Against Amnesty
The following is simply a list of factors present in the reviewers'
summaries which appear to have influenced the reviewers to recommend
for or against amnesty. Many of the summaries contain no recommenda- -
tion.
Factors Apparently Favoring Amnesty:
Unfortunate home background
Miscellaneous excuses and mitigating factors as sickness at time
of required registration
Good conduct in confinement
Ignorance of Selective Service laws and regulations
Illiteracy
Willingness to serve in the Armed Forces (this seemed to count
in favor even if a person was rejected for service)
Eligibility for exemptions which were not claimed
Sincerity
Status as a Japanese evacuee
Apparent unintentional nature of the violation
Triviality of the offense
Good record in service
Sincere religious objection not recognized by a local draft board,
or inadequately recognized
Importance of granting of amnesty to the individual's life and pro- -
fessional career (for instance, if having the conviction permanently
on his record could prevent the person from ever practicing the
profession for which he was trained)
Factors Apparently Opposing Amnesty:
Membership in the Nation of Islam (every single Black Muslim case
that I came across was denied)
A conventional criminal record
Non-religious objection to the Selective Service System or the war
Presenting a claim to be a minister in Jehovah's Witnesses but not
spending full time in religious work
Lack of mitigating circumstances
General insincerity
Mental illness
Poor conduct in prison
Apparent desire to be a martyr
Sexual promiscuity
Being a Puerto Rican nationalist
Race was very frequently mentioned in the summaries, but there
was no apparent strong pattern of differentiation based on racial factors.
If anything, there may have been slightly greater indulgence shown to
poor and uneducated Negroes.
Appendix II - Unusual Cases
The following are not representative summaries taken from the
reviewers' files. They are, rather, cases of either grants or denials
of amnesty which struck me as unusual in some important ways.
Cases in Which Amnesty Was Granted:
These are nearly all cases of non-religious conscientious objectors,
since most other cases were fairly routine and uninteresting grants of
amnesty which would not be particularly relevant to consideration of
political amnesty today.
1. One "intellectual objector" who received amnesty had served
in the peacetime American Army and had received an honorable dis- -
charge "with excellent character. 11 He had been, in the years just be-
fore American entry into the Second World War, engaged in much
anti-war work for mainly Catholic and Quaker groups, and perhaps
also some secular ones such as the War Resisters League and Peace
House. (I'm not sure whether these two groups are secular or
religious.) This person sought and was denied conscientious objector
status, and he then refused to report for induction. There was very
little in his case history on whether or not he had any religious back-
ground. Some of the comments about him which seem to have influenced
the decision in favor granting him amnesty were "fine character" and
"sincere in his conscientious objections. "
2. One "intellectual objector" had been convicted for failure to
register. He was amnestied with his case history presenting the
following facts: He was an older person, therefore probably not
subject to draft but simply required to register, and was aged 33 when
he was convicted. He had said that he was a conscientious objector,
but he was a member of no religious training. He said he had failed
to register for fear of being forced to kill. He said that he would have
been willing to serve in non-combat status, but that he not known how
to go about getting it. The reviewer of this man's file made no
recommendation for or against amnesty.
3. One person who received amnesty after having failed to
register for Selective Service was described as a sincere objector
who was a religious fanatic though not a member of any sect. After
being paroled from his sentence he worked at a hospital. In several
similar cases, amnesty was not granted.
4. A man described as an "intellectual objector" was amnestied
following conviction and serving time for failure to report for his
physical examination. This man was an agnostic but was viewed by
the reviewer as a sincere intellectual conscientious objector and was
also over-age for the draft when he refused to report. During his
parole he had driven an ambulance in Europe for the American Field
Service under hazardous conditions.
5. One person who received amnesty after having been convicted
for failure to register, serving time, and serving out his parole appears
to have been pardoned primarily because of an extremely favorable
view taken of his moral character. Some of the descriptions of him
were "very favorable reports" while on parole; "very religious";
"exceptional degree of intellectual honesty"; "well-conditioned in
Quaker philosophy". The reviewer commented that there was in his
record no implication of insincerity, equivocation, or mental reserva-
tion.
6. Another "intellectual objector" received amnesty after having
been convicted for failure to report for induction. He had claimed but
been denied conscientious objector status. He came from a rural area,
of a family with a tradition of being very strong individualistic non-
religious freethinkers who are very well regarded in their area. Members
of this family would study the Bible but subscribed to no particular faith.
The registrant decided that when he received his induction notice that
he was more important on the farm than he might have been in the service.
7. One man was described as a "non-conscientious objector" and
was convicted for failure to report for his physical examination. He re-
ceived amnesty on the following set of facts: He had sought but not re -
ceived conscientious objector status. Within a few days after his con-
viction he showed up for a physical examination (he had been put on pro- -
bation when convicted, with the condition that the probation would end
upon his induction into the service), but at this physical examination he
was found physically unfit. He then served out his probation period
satisfactorily.
8. Two unusual cases, one of them described as a "sociological
objector", received amnesty because they were either whole-blooded
or half-blooded Indians, the half blood being half Indian and half black,
but were classified by their draft boards as Negro. Since there were then
separate units, these men refused induction as Negroes, but made it
clear they would have been willing to accept induction as Indians and at
least one of the two tried to several times enlist as an Indian. Amnesty
was granted in both these cases.
General Comments. The above cases of non-religious objectors
(case 5 was, however, a religious objector) who received amnesty were
found by going through probably no more than 10% of the files of all those
who received amnesty. It thus seems likely that perhaps 50 to 100 men
who were then regarded as ineligible for conscientious objector status
nonetheless received amnesty. The amnesty board policy, however, was
not to grant amnesty in cases of intellectual or political objectors
without extenuating circumstances. Practically all the above cases show
considerable extenuating circumstances, and the summaries that follow
including cases of intellectual objectors denied amnesty will usually
be in some contrast by their absence of such circumstances.
Case Histories In Which Amnesty Was Denied:
1. One poor fellow was convicted three separate times, in late
1941, early 1942, and early 1944, for failure to report for induction
(the first two times) and for failure to report for his physical examination
(the last time). After each conviction he served approximately nine
months in federal prison and was then charged again after failing to
comply with a Selectrive Service requirement. The man had no religious
background so his claim for conscientious objector status was denied.
He was a person of good reputation and said he had no objection to wars
in defense of the American homeland. The reviewer noted that the man
had very strong anti-British and pro-German views.
2. Another political case was that of a man who failed to register.
He was described in the summary as having formerly been an "ardent
communist" who had become disillusioned with Communism and the
Soviet Union while fighting on the loyalist side in the Spanish Civil War.
He now felt that he could not let himself fight on the same side of a war
with Russia.
3. All cases of Puerto Rican' nationalists who failed to comply
with Selectrive Service laws because of their beliefs were denied
among those which I saw. One sample case was that of a case of a
man who said he would fight for the Allied side in a war if Puerto Rico
were freed from American colonial rule but, since Puerto Rico was under
American domination, refused to report for induction.
4. In one case a man seemed generally unqualified to receive
amnesty but the reviewer also thought it was relevant to add to the man's
summary that his family had been "a source of disturbance in its
community because of the socialistic and communistic views which the
various members express."
5. One typical case of a man who was denied amnesty was a man
who objected to the war as not being a defensive one and therefore re-
fused to report for induction. This was about all there was in the way of
relevant facts in his file.
6. A last case was described as "sociological objector (custodial
problem)". He was convicted for failure to report for his physical
examination. The various items in his summary included: A listing
of many memberships in activist political groups; "absolutist and a
pacifist"; "admittedly is a homosexual"; and his objection was "definitely
not based on religious grounds. 11 (Underscoring in original.) It was also
mentioned that the man had violated his parole but was not sent back to
jail since no point was seen in making him serve out the rest of his
sentence. Finally, he had constantly agitated in jail.