Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "1506038",
    "label": "Truman Amnesty Board",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1506038"
}

{
    "id": "1506038",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1506038",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Truman Amnesty Board",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1506038",
    "collections": [
        "Charles E. Goodell Papers",
        "Presidential Clemency Board Subject Files"
    ],
    "subjects": [
        "Amnesty"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0193/648291/1506038.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0193/648291/1506038.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0193/648291/1506038.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1506038",
    "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"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0193/648291/1506038.pdf",
    "mediaId": "ad54e7f211b39c67",
    "ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box 10, folder \"Truman Amnesty Board\" of the\nCharles E. Goodell Papers at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nCopyright Notice\nThe copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of\nphotocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Charles Goodell donated to the United\nStates of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.\nWorks prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public\ndomain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to\nremain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid\ncopyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nDigitized from Box 10 of the Charles E. Goodell Papers at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library\nTRUMAN\nFORD\nNATIONAL\nSCRIPTA\nARCHIVE'S\nGERALD\nTHE\nLITTERA\nMANET\nREGIST\nOF\nVOLUME 11\nTHE\n1934\nSTATES\nUNITED\nNUMBER 250\nWashington, Wednesday, December 25, 1946\nThe President\nAll executive departments and\nCONT\nagencies of the Federal Government are\nauthorized and directed to cooperate\nTHE PRE\nEXECUTIVE ORDER 9814\nwith the Board in its work, and to furnish\nthe Board all appropriate information\nEXECUTIVE ORDER:\nESTABLISHING AN AMNESTY BOARD To RE-\nand assistance.\nAmnesty Board to\nVIEW CONVICTIONS OF PERSONS UNDER\nY\nTHE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE\nThe Board shall cease to exist, un\nvictions of p\nACT OF 1940 AND To MAKE RECOMMEN-\nless otherwise provided by further Ex-\nSelective Tr\nDATIONS FOR EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY WITH\necutive order, upon the submission of its\nService Act\nRESPECT THERETO\nfinal recommendations to the President\nrecommendati\nby the Attorney General.\nutive clemency\nBy virtue of the authority vested in me\nthereto; estab\n4\nas President of the United States by sec-\nHARRY S. TRUMAN\nREGULATIONS\ntion 2 of Article II of the Constitution of\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nthe United States, which provides that\nDecember 23, 1946.\nAGRICULTURE. DEPAR\n\"The\nPresident\nshall\nhave\n[F. R. Doc. 46-21944; Filed, Dec. 23, 1946;\nalso Farm Cr\npower to grant and pardons for\n3:17 p. m.]\ntration.\noffenses against the United States; except\nMilk handling in (\nin cases of impeachment,' and. in the\ncil Bluffs ar\ninterest of the internal management of\nRegulations\nrules\nthe Government, it is ordered as follows:\nRice; set aside required\n:0\n1. There is hereby established a board\nrestrictions 0)\nof three members, which shall be known\nand milling (\nas the President's Amnesty Board. The\nTITLE 6-AGRICULTURAL CREDIT\n20)\nmembers of the Board shall be appointed\nChapter I-Farm Credit Administration,\nFARM CREDIT ADMIN\nby the President, who shall also designate\nDepartment of Agriculture\nFederal\ninterme\nits chairman\nbanks;\n:\n2. The Board, under such regulations\nSubchapter D-Federal Intermediate Credit Banks\nfunctions:\nas it may prescribe, shall examine and\nGeneral\nPART 40-GENERAL\nconsider the cases of all persons con-\nInterest and dis\nvicted of violation of the Selective Train-\nPART 41-INTEREST AND DISCOUNT RATES\nFEDERAL POWER Co:\ning and Service Act of 1940, as amended\nORGANIZATION AND FUNCTIONS\nConsolidated Gas\n(50 U. S. C. App. 301 ff.), or of any rule\nhearing\nor regulation prescribed under or pur-\nWhereas, the substance of § 40.101 of\nFEDERAL SAVINGS ANI\nsuant to that Act, or convicted of a con\nTitle 6 of the Code of Federal Regula-\nANCE CORPORATIC\nspiracy to violate that Act or any rule or\ntions; relating to the functions of the\nInsurance of 20\nregulation prescribed under or pursuant\nFederal intermediate credit banks, has\ncommissions;\nthereto. In any case in which it deems it\nbeen incorporated in § 40:2 of Title 6, and\nrules\ndesirable to do so, the Board shall make\nthe substance of § 40.102 of Title 6, re-\nHOUSING EXPEDITER;\na report to the Attorney General which\nlating to the supervision of the Federal\nDelegations of fi:\nshall include its findings and its recom-\nintermediate credit banks by the Inter-\ndirectives to\nmendations as to whether Executive\nmediate Credit Commissioner, has been\nduction Admi\nclemency should be granted or denied,\nincorporated in §§ 2.1 and 2.2 of Title 6:\nNails, housing\nand, in any case in which it recommends\nand whereas, Part 41 of Title 6 of the\nSoil pipe, cast\nthat Executive clemency be granted, its\nCode of Federal Regulations is now en-\nINTERSTATE COMMERC\nrecommendations with respect to the\ntitled \"Organization and Internal Af-\nform that such clemency should take.\nCar service; susp\nThe Attorney General shall report the\nfairs,\" while the organization of the Fed-\nmurrage rule\nfindings and recommendations of the\neral intermediate credit banks is de-\nCommodities, un!\nBoard to the President, with such further\nscribed in Part 40, § 40.1 of Title 6 thereof\nOrleans, La.\nrecommendations as he may desire to\nand not in Part 41:\nSECURITIES AND E\nmake.\nSections 40.101 and 40.102 of Title 6\nMISSION:\nThe members of the Board shall\nof the Code of Federal Regulations are\nHearings, etc.:\nserve without compensation, but shall be\nhereby rescinded.\n.American Teler\nentitled to necessary expenses incurred\nThe title of Part 41 of Title 6 of the\negraph Co.\nIn the performance of their duties under\nCode of Federal Regulations is hereby\nEngineers Publ\nthis order.\nHudson River\n(Continued on next page)\nal\nDRAFT LAW VIOLATORS-PARDON\nterms, conditions, and qualifications set forth in that schedule and in\nparts I, II, or III of that agreement, to all articles of the kinds provided\nfor In the said descriptions, except that no such rate shall be applied to\na particular article by virtue of this proclamation if, when the article is\nentered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption,—\n(I) The rate represents a concession identified in the list set forth in\nthe Sth recital of this proclamation,\n(II) The rate is specified in item 720(a), item 745, item 806(b), or\nthe first item 1529(a) in part I of schedule XX of said general agreement\nas set forth in the document annexed to this proclamation,11 or\n(III) More, favorable customs treatment is, prescribed for the article\nby a statute, proclamation, or executive order then in effect;\n(b) The rates of duty specified in the 9th recital of this proclamation\nshall be applied respectively to the articles described in the column at\nthe left of such rates as though the said rates, descriptions, and related\nparagraph numbers appeared in part .I of schedule XX of said general\nagreement; and\n(c) Nothing in this proclamation shall be construed as authorizing the\napplication of any rate of duty or import tax computed on the basis of\nthe provisions of article I of the said general agreement, except such\nrates as may hereafter be proclaimed pursuant to the provisions of sec-\ntion 350, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended;\nAND I do further proclaim that, on and after January 1, 1948, the\neffectiveness of said proviso to subdivision (J) of section 304(a) (3) of\nthe Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, shall be suspended, except with re-\nspect to bundles of red-cedar shingles.\nIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the\nSeal of the United States of America to be affixed.\nDONE at the City of Washington this sixteenth day of December, in\nthe year of our Lord. nineteen hundred and forty-seven and of\n[SEAL]\nthe Independence of the United States of America the one hun-\ndred and seventy second.\nHARRY S. TRUMAN\nBy the President:\nROBERT A. LOVETT,\nActing Secretary of State.\nNo. 2762\n12 F. R. 8731\nGRANTING PARDON TO CERTAIN PERSONS CONVICTED OF\nVIOLATING THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE\nACT OF 1940 AS AMENDED\nBY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA\nA PROCLAMATION\nWHEREAS by Executive Order No. 9814 of December 23, 1946,20\nthere was established the President's Amnesty Board, the functions and\nduties of which were set out in paragraph 2 of the said Executive order\nas follows:\n\"The Board, under such regulations as It may prescribe, shall examine\nand consider the cases of all persons convicted of violation of the Selec-\ntive Training and Service Act of 1940, as amended (50 U. S. C. App.\nCOIN.), or of any rule or regulation prescribed under or pursuant to that\nAct, or convicted of a conspiracy to violate that Act or any rule or reg-\nulation prescribed under or pursuant thereto. In any case in which it\ndeems it desirable to do so, the Board shall make a report to the Attorney\nGeneral which shall include its findings and its recommendations as to\nwhether Executive clemency should be granted or denied, and, in any case\n18 See footnote 12.\n20 U.S.Code Cong.Service 1916, D. 1882.\n1957\nPROCLAMATIONS\nT\nin which it recommends that Executive clemency be granted, its recome-\nmendations with respect to the form that such clemency should take\nclaimed\nThe Attorney General shall report the findings and recommendations of\nto 155\nthe Board to the President, with such further recommendations as be\nPreside\nmay desire to make.\"\nIVIII\nand\n(a). tl\nWHEREAS the Board, after considering all cases coming within the\nbeen e\nscope of paragraph .2 of the said Executive order, has made a report to\n24. ch.\nthe Attorney General, which includes the findings of the Board and its\n(a)\nrecommendation that Executive clemency be granted in certain of such\nBritish\ncases; and\nada, 01\nWHEREAS the Attorney General has submitted such report to me THE\nagreen\nhis approval of the recommendation made by the Board with respect to\nStat. 0\nExecutive clemency; and\nlamati\nWHEREAS upon consideration of the report and recommendation of\n2395)\nthe Board and the recommendation of the Attorney General, it appears\n(b)\nthat certain persons convicted of violating the Selective Training act\nBritis\nService Act of 1940³¹ as amended ought to have restored to them the\nUnited\npolitical, civil, and other rights of which they were deprived by reason of\n17. 19\nsuch conviction and which may not be restored to them unless they are\nprocla\npardoned:\n1S97\nNOW, THEREFORE, I, HARRY S. TRUMAN, President of the United\nthe P:\nStates of America, under and by virtue of the authority vested in me by\nWH\nArticle II of the Constitution of the United States, do hereby grant a full\nagree\npardon to those persons convicted of violating the Selective Training and\nBelgo\nService Act of 1940 as amended whose names are included in the list of\nKingd\nnames attached hereto [List Omitted] and hereby made-a part of this\nand 1\nproclamation.\ntries\nIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the\n5:12\nexcep\nSeal of the United States of America to be affixed.\nagree\nDONE at the City of Washington this 23rd day of December in the year\nAmer\nyou\nof our Lord nineteen hundred and forty-seven, and of the Inde-\neral\n[SEAL]\npendence of the United States of America the one hundred and\narticl\nseventy-second\nWI\n43\nHARRY S. TRUMAN\nthe F\nBy the President:\nTRAVOJ ATTENNEY\nment\nROBERT A. LOVETT,\nbirth\nto\nof\nthe o\nActing Secretary of State.\nthe E\nthe T\ncontr\nNo.: 2763\nthere\nin\nwe\n12 F. R. 8866\nAN\n1938\nAct\nTERMINATION OF TRADE AGREEMENT PROCLAMATIONS\nthe\nBY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA\nBecti\nNO\nA PROCLAMATION\nof t'\nWHEREAS (1), pursuant to the authority conferred by section 350\nby 1\n(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the act of June 12, 1934\nhere\nentitled \"AN ACT To amend the Tariff Act of 1930\" (48 Stat. 943 and\n2nd\n944, ch. 474) 22 the President of the United States of America entered into\n194\nthe following trade agreements:\nof\n(a) With the Belgo-Luxemburg Economic Union on February 27, 1933\nT\n(49 Stat. (pt. 2) 3681 to 3716). which trade agreement was proclaimed\nSea\nby the President on April 1, 1935 (49 Stat. (pt. 2) 3680 to 3717).\nI\n(b) With the Government of the French Republic on May 6, 1936 (5%\nStat. (pt. 3) 2237 to 2290), which trade agreement was proclaimed to\n[s:\nthe President on May 16, 1936 (53 Stat. (pt. 3) 2236 to 3201), and\n(c) With Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands on December 90.\n1935 (50 Stat. (pt. 2) 1505 to 1557), which trade agreement was -\n21 50 U.S. C.A.Appendix, I 301 et Req.\n22 19 U.S.C.A. § 1351.\n1958\nForTramant\nDec\n1947\nGERALD\nREPORT OF THE PRESIDENT'S ANNESTY BOARD\nThe President's Amnesty Board, established by Executive Order of\nDecember 23, 1946, to review convictions under the Selective Training and\nService Act of 1940, as amended, and to make recommendations for Executive\nClemency, has completed its task and submits this, its first and final report,\nBefore adopting any general policies, the Board heard representatives\nof interested parties and groups. It heard representatives of historic peace\nchurches, of the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America, leaders of\nthe Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (whose followers are known as Jehovah's\nWitnesses), officials of the United States Army and Navy, and the National\nHeadquarters of Selective Service, representatives of citizens' groups, veterans'\norganizations, and pacifist organizations. Some of the violators themselves,\nformerly inmates of penal institutions, appeared, either in person or by repre-\nsentatives, and were heard,\nTheir recommendations varied from that of a general amnesty to all\nviolators regardless of the circumstances, to a refusal of amnesty to anyone.\nTo grant a general amnesty would have restored full civil status to a large\nnumber of men who neither were, nor claimed to be, religious conscientious\nobjectors.\nIn perhaps one-half of the cases considered, the files reflected a\nprior record of one O1' more serious criminal offenses. The Board would have\nfailed in its duty to society and to the memory of the men who fought and died\nto protect it, had amnesty been recommended in these cases. Nor could the\nBoard have justified its existence, had a policy been adopted of refusing pardon\nto all.\n(OVER)\n15,805 chocs consedered\n-2-\nIn establishing policies, therefore, we were called upon to reconcile\ndivergencies, and to adopt a course which would, on the one hand, be humane and\nviolators\nin accordance with the traditions of the United States, and yet, on the other\ndiminished\nhand, would uphold the spirit of the law.\nthese have\nExamination of a large number of cases at the outset convinced us the\nthe Board\nto do justice to each individual as well as to the Nation, it would be necessar\nrestoration\nto review each case upon its merits with the view of recommending individual\npardons, and that no group should be granted amnesty as such.\nthat in ea\nAdequate review of the 15,805 cases brought to our attention would\nof the cla\nhave been impossible had it not been for the cooperation of Government depart-\ninto which\nments and agencies, such as the Office of the Attorney General, the Federal\nto evade S\nBureau. of Investigation, the Bureau of Prisons, the Criminal Division of the\ntraining o\nDepartment of Justice, the United States Probation Officers, the Administrativ\nOffice of the United States Courts, United States Attorneys throughout the\nviolation,\ncountry, the Armed Forces of the United States and the Headquarters of Selecti\nof all the\nService. The records of these offices were made available, and those in charg\nsider not\nfurnished requested information.\nbackground\nThe information derived from all sources was briefed by a corps of\nwilful vio\ntrained reviewers, It included such essential data as family history, school\nstanding 0\nand work records, prior criminal record, if any, religious affiliations and\nother case\npractices, Selective Service history, nature and circumstances of offenses,\nthe Armed\npunishment imposed, time actually served in confinement, custodial records, pr\nbation reports, and conduct in society after release, In addition, the Board\nwhose rec\nhad in most instances psychiatric reports and one or more voluntary statements\nGovernment\nby the offender concerning the circumstances of the offense,\ntions of t\ndesertion\n-3-\nto reconcile\nWhen the Board organized in January 1946, about 1200 of the 15,805\nbe humane and\nviolators of Selective Service were in penal institutions. The number\nn the other\ndiminished daily. At the present time there are 626 in custody; 550 of\nthese have been committed since the constitution of this Board. The work of\nvinced us tha\nthe Board was directed cliefly to examining the propriety of recommending\n4d be necessar\nrestoration of civil rights to those who have been returned to their homes.\nindividual\nIn analyzing the cases we found that they fell into classes, but\nthat in each class there were exceptional cases which took the offender out\nition would\nof the class and entitled him to special consideration. The main divisions\nnment depart-\ninto which the cases fell were (1) those of violation due to a wilful intent\nhe Federal\nto evade service, and (2) those resulting from beliefs derived from religious\nsion of the\ntraining or other convictions.\nAdministrativ\nAt least two-thirds of the cases considered were those of wilful\nshout the\nviolation, not based on religious scruples. These varied greatly in the light\ners of Selecti\nof all the relevant facts disclosed in each case. It became necessary to con-\nthose in charg\nsider not only the circumstances leading up to the offense, but the subject's\nbackground, education, and environment. In some instances what appeared a\na corps of\nwilful violation was in fact due to ignorance, illiteracy, honest misunder-\nstory, school\nstanding or carelessness not rising to the level of criminal negligence. In\nations and\nother cases the record showed a desire to remedy the fault by enlistment in\nof offenses,\nthe Armed Forces.\nial records, pr\nMany of the wilful violators were men with criminal records; men\nion, the Board\nwhose records included murder, rape, burglary, larceny, robbery, larceny of\ntary statements\nGovernment property, fraudulent enlistment, conspiracy to rob, arson, viola-\ntions of the narcotics law, violations of the immigration laws, counterfeiting,\ndesertion from the United States Armed Forces, embezzlement, breaking and\n(OVER)\n-4-\nentering, bigamy, drinking benzedrine to deceive medical examiners, felonious\nassault, violations of National Motor Vehicle Theft Act, extortion, black-\nmail, impersonation, insurance frauds, bribery, black market operations and\nother offenses of equally serious nature; men who were seeking to escape det\ntion for crimes committed; fugitives from justice; wife deserters; and other:\nwho had ulterior motives for escaping the draft. Those who for these or sim\nreasons exhibited a deliberate evasion of the law, indicating no respect for\nlaw or the civil rights to which they might have been restored, are not, in\njudgment, deserving of a restoration of their civil rights, and we have not\nrecommended them for pardon.\nAmong the violators, quite a number are new mental cases\nWe have\nmade no attempt to deal with them, since most of them remain in mental insti\ntions with little or no chance of recovery. Until they recover mental health\ntheir loss of civil rights imposes no undue burden.\nThe Board has made no recommendation respecting another class of\nviolators. These are the men who qualify for. automatic pardon pursuant to\nPresidential Proclamation No. 2676, dated December 24, 1945. They are the\nviolators who, after conviction, volunteered for service in the Armed Forces\nprior to December 24, 1945, and received honorable discharges following one\nyear or more of duty. Most of those who, prior to the last-mentioned date a:\nsubsequent to that date, entered the Army and received honorable discharges\nwith less than a year of service have been recommended for pardon. These\nhave brought themselves within the equity of the President's Proclamation,\nNo. 2676.\nThe second main class of violators consists of those who\ncomply with the law because of their religious training, or their religious,\n-5-\nTS, felonious\npolitical or sociological beliefs. We have classified them, generally, as\nion, black-\nconscientious objectors. It is of interest that less than six per cent of\nerations and\nthose convicted of violating the Act asserted conscientious conviction as the\nto escape detec\nbasis of their action. This percentage excludes Jehovah's Witnesses, whose\nrs; and others\ncases are dealt with hereafter. Although the percentage was small, these\nthese OF simil\ncases presented difficult problems.\n10 respect for\nThe Selective Service Boards faced a very difficult task in adminis-\nare not, in ou\ntering the provisions concerning religious conscientious objection. Generally\n1 we have not\nspeaking, they construed the exemption liberally. Naturally, however, Soards\nin different localities differed somewhat in their application of the exemp-\nases. We have\ntion. In recommending pardons, we have been conscious of hardships resulting\nmental institu\nfrom the factor of error.\nmental health\nMany of the Selective Service Boards did not consider membership in\nan historic peace church as a condition to exemption of those asserting\nher class of\nreligious conscientious objection to military service. Nor have our recom-\npursuant to\nmendations of pardons been so strictly limited. We have recommended in-\nThey are the\ndividuals who were members of no sect or religious group, if the subject's\nArmed Forces\nrecord and all the circumstances indicated that he was motivated by a sincere\nfollowing one\nreligious belief. We have found some violators who acted upon an essentially\nntioned date and\nreligious belief, but were unable properly to present their claims for exemp-\nle discharges\ntion. We have recommended them for pardon.\ndon. These mer\nWe found that some who sought exemption as conscientious objectors\nProclamation,\nwere not such within the purview of the Act. These were men who asserted no\nreligious training or belief but founded their objections on intellectual,\nwho refused to\npolitical, or sociological convictions resulting from the individual's reason-\ntheir religious,\ning and personal economic or political philosophy. We have not felt justified\n(OVER)\n-6-\nin recommending those who thus have set themselves up as wiser :\ncompetent than society to determine their duty to come to the di\nNation.\nSome of those who asserted conscientious objections We\nhave been moved in fact by fear, the desire to evade military SI\nthe wish to remain as long as possible in highly paid employment\nUnder the law, a man who received a IV-E classificati\nconscientious objector, instead of being inducted into the Armed\nassigned to a Civilian Public Service Camp. The National Head\nSelective Service estimates that about 12,000 men received this\ntion, entered camps and performed the duties assigned them. Ce:\nconscientious objectors refused to go to such camps on being aw:\nclassification, or, after arriving at the camps, refused to com;\nregulations and violated the rules of the camps in various ways\nagainst what they thought unconstitutional or unfair administra\nclude\ncamps. Some deserted the camps for similar reasons. We may\nCO:\nacted\ngood faith. But they refused to submit to the provisions of the\nService Act, and were convicted for their intentional violation\nThere was a method to test the legality of their detention in tl\nfew of them resorted to that method. Where other circumstance:\nhave recommended them for pardon. But most of them simply ass\nsuperiority to the law and determined to follow their own wish\nlaw. We think that this attitude should not be condoned, and W\nfrom recommending such persons for favorable consideration, unl\nextenuating circumstances.\n-7-\nand more\nClosely analogous to conscientious objectors, and yet not within\nfense of the\nthe fair interpretation of the phrase, were a smaller, though not inconse-\nquential number of American citizens of Japanese ancestry who were removed\nvere found to\nin the early stages of the war, under military authority, from their homes\nservice, or\nin defense coastal areas and placed in war relocation centers. Although we\nrecognize the urgent necessities of military defense, we fully appreciate the\nion as a\nnature of their feelings and their reactions to orders from local Selective\ned Forces, was\nService Boards. Prior to their removal from their homes they had been law-\nlquarters of\nabiding and loyal citizens. They deeply resented classification as undesira-\nS classifica-\nbles. Most of them remained loyal to the United States and indicated a desire\nertain\nto remain in this country and to fight in its defense, provided their rights\nwarded a IV-E\nof citizenship were recognized. For these we have recommended pardons, in the\noly with\nbelief that they will justify our confidence in their loyalty.\n'S as a protes\nSome 4,300 cases were those of Jehovah's Witnesses, whose diffi-\nration of the\nculties arose over their insistence that each of them should be accorded a\noncede their\nministerial status and consequent complete exemption from military service, or\nthe Selective\nCivilian Public Service Camp duty. The organization of the sect is dissimilar\non of the law.\nto that of the ordinary denomination. It is difficult to find a standard by\nthe courts.\nwhich to classify a member of the sect as a minister in the usual meaning of\nces warranted\nthat term. It is interesting to note that no representations were rade to\nasserted their\nCongress when the Selective Service Act was under consideration with respect to\nsh and defy the\nthe ministerial status of the members of this group. Some time after the\nwe have refrai\nSelective Service Act became law, and after many had been accorded the consci--\nunless there we\nentious objector status, the leaders of the sect asserted that all of its\nmembers were ministers. Many Selective Service Boards classified Jehovah's\nWitnesses as conscientious objectors, and consequently assigned them to\n(OVER)\n-E-\nCivilian Public Service Camps. A few at first accepted this classification\nafter the policy of claiming ministerial status had been adopted, they cha\ntheir claims and they and other members of the sect insisted upon complete\ntion as ministers. The Headquarters of the Selective Service, after some\nsideration, ruled that those who devoted practically their entire time to\n\"witnessing\", should be classified as ministers. The Watchtower Society II\nlists available to Selective Service. It is claimed that these lists were\ncomplete. The Selective Service Boards' problem was a difficult one. We\nhave found that the action of the Boards was not wholly consistent in attr\nbuting ministerial status to Jehovah's Witnesses, and we have endeavored t\ncorrect any discrepancy by recommending pardons to those we think should h\nbeen classified.\nThe sect has many classes of persons who appear to be awarded th\nofficial titles by its headquarters, such as company servants, company\npublishers, advertising servants, etc. In the case of almost all these pe\nthe member is employed full time in a gainful occupation in the secular WC\nHe \"witnesses\", as it is said, by distributing leaflets, playing phonograp\ncalling at houses, selling literature, conducting meetings, etc., in his $\ntime, and on Sundays and holidays. He may devote a number of hours per mo\nto these activities, but he is in no sense a \"minister\" as the phrase is\ncommonly understood. We have not recommended for pardon any of these secu\nworkers who have witnessed in their spare or non-working time. Many of t\nperhaps would have been granted classifications other than I-A had they ap\nfor them. They persistently refused to accept any classification except\nof IV-D, representing ministerial; and, therefore, complete exemption. M\nof their offenses embraced refusal to register, refusal to submit to phys:\n-9-\nclassification, b\nted, they change\nexamination, and refusal to report for induction. They went to jail\nupon complete ex\nbecause of these refusals. Many, however, were awarded a IV-E classifica-\n, after some con\ntion as conscientious objectors, notwithstanding their protestation that\ntire time to\nthey did not want it. These, when ordered to report to Civilian Public\nwer Society made\nService Camps, refused to do so and suffered conviction and imprisonment\nse lists were in\nrather than comply. While few of these offenders had theretofore been\nlt one. We\nviolators of the law, we cannot condone their Selective Service offenses,\ntent in attri-\nnor recommend them for pardons. To do so would be to sanction an assertion\nendeavored to\nby a citizen that he is above the law; that he makes his own law; and that\nink should have\nhe refused to yield his opinion to that of organized society on the question\nof his country's need for service.\nawarded their\nIn summary we may state that there were 15,805 Selective Service\ncompany\nviolation cases considered. In this total there were approximately 10,000\n11 these perso\nwilful violators, 4,300 Jehovah's Witnesses, 1,000 religious conscientious\nsecular world\nobjectors and 500 other types. Of this total 618 were granted Presidential\n0g phonographs,\npardons because of a year or more service with honorable discharges from\n, in his spar\nthe Armed Forces. An additional approximate 900 entered the Armed Forces\nours per month\nand may become eligible for pardon upon the completion of their service.\nMase is\nWhen the Board was created there were 1,200 offenders in custody. Since\n{ these secular\nthat date an additional 550 have been institutionalized, At the present\nMany of them\ntime there are 626 in confinement, only 76 of whom were in custody on\nhad they appli\nJanuary 6, 1947.\nion except tha\notion. Most\n(OVER)\nit to physical\n-10-\nTABULATION\nConvictions under Selective Service Act considered\n15,\nWilful Violators (Non-conscientious Objectors)\napproximately 10,000\nJehovah's Witnesses\napproximately 4,300\nConscientious Objectors\napproximately 1,000\nOther Types of Violators\napproximately\n500\nThose who have received Presidential\npardens under Presidential Proc-\nlamation 2676 dated December 24, 1945\napproximately 618\nThose who entered the Armed Forces and\nmay receive pardons\napproximately 900\n1,518\nRecommended by this Board\n1,523\nAKIM, Alfr\nTotal recommended for pardon and who may earn\nAKUTSU, Hi\npardon through service in the Armed Forces\n3,041\nAKUTSU, Ji\nThe Board recommends that Executive clemency be extended to the 1,523.\nALBRECHT,\nindividuals whose names appear on the attached list, attested as to its correct-\nAlexander,\nness by the Executive Secretary of the Board, and that each person named receive\nALEXANDER,\na pardon for his violation of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, a\nALEXANDER,\namended.\nALLEN, Jam\nALLEN, Sam\nALLMAN, Cr\nOwen J. Roberts, Chairman\nALSTON, Wi\nWillis Smith\nALTER, Joh\nAMATE, Ats\nJames F. O'Neil\nAMATO, Jos\n4.\nAMBURGY, C\nANBURGY, K\nFebruary 29, 1972\nTO:\nSenator Edward M. Kennedy\nFROM:\nChief Counsel, Subcommittee on Administrative\nPractice and Procedure\nSenate Committee on the Judiciary\nPresident Truman's post-World War II Amnesty Board\nBackground Information\nFor mainly nonpolitical cases, in two respects the general\nappeal of amnesty after World War II may actually have been\ngreater than today. First, a review of the Amnesty Board files\nmakes it appear that unintentional technical violations of the\nSelective Service rules and laws were punished by criminal\nconviction and prison terms much more often than I have the\nimpression they are today. Second, the Seeger and Welsh cases\nwere far in the future, so the definition of a conscientious\nobjector was somewhat narrower than it is today; many persons\nwho are not conventionally religious can now get CO status\nthough they must still, of course, after last year's Gillette\nand Negre decision, object to war in general.\nFor political cases, of course, the situation is vastly\ndifferent because of the widespread strong feeling against the\nVietnam War.\nOne other background item is that the Amnesty Board was not\nPresident Truman's first action in the field: about a year be-\nfore he established the Board and about two years before his\namnesty grant, he proclaimed a pardon for all those who had\nfrom 1941 to 1945 been convicted of violating a federal (civ-\nilian) criminal law but subsequently served at least a year in\nthe armed forces and were honorably discharged, with the pardon\napplying also to those still in at the time of the proclamation who\nlater got honorable discharges. This action eliminated a fair\nnumber of cases from those the Board had to consider seriously.\nThe Amnesty Board\nPursuant to the President's constitutional power of pardon,\nPresident Truman in late 1946 established the Amnesty Board, which\nexisted for just under one year. It consisted of former Justice Owen\nRoberts as chairman, with Willis Smith (subsequently Senator from\nNorth Carolina?) and James O'Neil, our witness, as members.\n2\nThe Board was to examine all convictions under the 1940 Selective\nService law and make recommendations for executive clemency; the\norder setting up the Board established no particular standards. The\nBoard reviewed 15, 805 cases (I reckon that means about 60 per\nworking day if you spread it over a year evenly; I found no working\nmemoranda on procedure, but dates on case files were widely spread\nout), noted about 1518 already pardoned or eligible for pardon under\nthe 1945 proclamation, and recommended 1523 pardons. The President\nendorsed that recommendation, and the men were pardoned.\nCriteria Mentioned in the Board's Report\n1) No amnesty in cases involving prior serious crimes\n(about 1/2 of all cases). My impression from the files is that\nthis was not follwed 100%.\n2) Rectifying nonuniformity among local board treatments\nof conscientious objector claims. The Board said it was not\ntrying to be strict but to look for \"essentially religious be-\nlief\" behind objections.\n3) Denial of amnesty in nonreligious--intellectual, poli-\ntical, social, etc. objection cases, because these persons \"set\nthemselves up as wiser and more competent than society to deter-\nmine their duty to come to the defense of the Nation. 11 The files,\nand the case summaries in the Appendix, indicate that the Board\noften deviated from this rule when it found extenuating circumstances.\n4) No consideration for those who had acted out of apparent\nfear or desire simply to keep a good civilian job.\n5) No favorable consideration, absent extenuating circum-\nstances, for those who received conscientious objector status\nbut refused to perform required noncombat or civilian duty.\n6) Favorable consideration for relocated Japanese-origin\ncitizens. There appears to have been something of a movement\namong interned Japanese to say they would not serve unless they\nwere restored their full rights as citizens.\n7) Distinction among Jehovah's Witnesses based on whether\nthey appeared to be doing full-time ministerial work or not.\nThe Witnesses all waived CO status and all claimed ministerial\nexemptions.\nLimitations Flowing From the Board's Jurisdiction\nSince the Board was considering only cases involving con-\nvictions under the Selective Service laws, it did not at all\nget into three types of cases we might be interested in:\n1) Deserters. (N. B. 11 Deserters got no consideration\nfrom the 1945 pardon either, since it was limited to violators\nof federal civilian laws.)\n2) Expatriates. I discovered a few cases of people who\nhad spent some time in Mexico, but they were being considered\nonly because they had been convicted after returning,\n3) Domestic fugitives not yet convicted.\nNature of Most Cases Considered\nOf the 15, 805 cases considered, fully 14, 300 were either\ntechnical violators of greater or lesser severity--from deter-\nmined, selfishly motivated draft dogers and serious criminals\ndown to those who forgot to tell their board of a change of\naddress (10, 000 in all) -or Jehova's Witnesses (4, 300). There\nwere about 1, 000 CO's and 500 others.\nN.B.: It should therefore be recognized that opening the\nquestion of amnesty may get us into considering huge numbers of\nmessy little cases of people who, say, just registered late. Nothing\nnecessarily wrong with that, but we should be aware of it.\nMain Types of Cases and Policy in 1947 with Implications for Present\nThe following is based exclusively on my survey of the investi-\ngation files and represents an effort to summarize the treatment given\nto the several categories which the Amnesty Board considered. (The\nfiles, incidentally, consist mainly of one-page summaries of cases\nprepared by the Boards staff of reviewers.) I then try to comment\nbriefly on the relation of the policy adopted in 1947 to present considera-\ntion of amnesty.\nConscientious Objectors\nThere were many categories of conscientious objectors, and their\ntreatment varied widely from one category to another.\nReligious general COs with properly presented claims. Many\npeople seem to have been inexplicably denied CO status by unsym-\npathetic local boards and to have been subsequently convicted. The\nBoard seems to have tried to iron out disparities on a basis then con-\nsidered lenient. My impression is that local boards are somewhat\nless nasty today, but that there is still plenty of variance. The variance\nthat exists probably gets reduced by the courts more than it did during\nthe war as people fight convictions. Still, what remains strikes me as\nlikely being ample to justify consideration of amnesty even for those who\ngenerally don't like the idea, and we might be able to use the argument\n(with the double edge that it's both obviously right and has been done\nbefore) as an entering wedge with the unsympathetic, and perhaps as a\nway to get established a board with vague jurisdiction which it might\ninterpret broadly.\nReligious general COs with some procedural problem. Many CO's\ndidn't follow all the rules and would, for example, refuse to have anything\nto do with the System at all and therefore not register, or refuse alternate\nservice, or start alternate service and quit. The Board seems to have had\na mild presumption against these types, especially the latter two, but was\nwilling to grant amnesty in some cases if there were mitigating circum-\nstances or the or the person impressed the reviewer with his exceptional\nsincerity. I think we convict most of these people today, and since their\nappeal is somewhat less than the previous category the precedent value\nis helpful.\nReligious selective CO's. For all practical purposes, there were\nnone in the files I read. One case of a Catholic wasn't clear whether the\nobjection was general or selective, and amnesty was denied. Such people\nwould be numerous today, especially Catholic \"just war\" theory objectors,\nand are one of the very most appealing groups even after the Supreme Court\ndecisions last year in Gillette and Negre. There is, at any rate, no really\nstrong precedent against them, though the Board almost certainly wouldn't\nhave liked them if it had had to face the question. Better not ask O'Neil\nanything about these--you'd probably get a lecture on how you can't pick\nyour war.\n\"Nonreligious\" general CO's - within Seeger-Welsh criteria.\nThese men had little luck from draft boards, courts, and the Amnesty\nBoard. The Board showed some give if there were extenuating cir-\ncumstances. Most of these people, provided they were willing to\nregister and present a CO claim today, would get proper CO treatment\nunder the Seeger-Welsh broadening of the definition of \"religious.\"\nThere should be relatively few cases of such people as candidates for\namnesty today.\nNonreligious COs. Since the Seeger-Welsh line had not been\ndrawn back then, these people got the same treatment as the immediately\npreceding category -generally unsympathetic, especially if the objection\nappeared \"political;\" but the more the objection appeared general and\nclose to \"religious, 11 the more the Board seemed to be willing to bend.\nMany of these people are getting convicted or leaving the country today,\nand like the religious selective CO's they constitute one of the largest\nand most appealing groups for amnesty today. There is, however, a\nfairly strong and square precedent against them in the Board's practice,\nsomewhat attenuated by their willingness to bend in appealing cases. If\nyou ask O'Neil any questions at all in this area, perhaps a good line\nwould be to press him on why they waffled as much as they did and\nwhether that doesn't indicate the case here is stronger than people often\nthink it is.\nExpatriates\nNone were considered, except a very few who had left temporarily\nhad been prosecuted on return. They were not considered as a special\ncategory -they fit in elsewhere, as \"wilful violators\" or COs. Considera-\ntion of expatriates not convicted and still outside the country was outside\nthe Board's jurisdiction. There are no precedents here for one of your\nbiggest problems today, the expatriates -SSS violators and deserters\nwho cannot return because of citizenship problems or must at least face\nprosecution.\nDeserters\nNot as such in the Board's jurisdiction, though desertion from\nservice after entering it subsequent to conviction would have been an\nunfavorable circumstance. The Senator might be interested in teeing\noff a little on the limitation in Taft's bill because of how it discriminates\nin favor of middle-class intellectuals who know their minds before they\nget drafted, as opposed to the lower-class people who find out the military\ndoesn't agree with them once they're in. Consistent with his stand\nagainst the volunteer army.\n\"Wilful Violators\"\nThis was the Boards catchall category for those who didn't seem to\nhave a reason like conscientious objection. They were treated pretty much\non a case-by-case basis, with a search made for mitigating or aggravating\ncircumstances. (See Appendix I for list of miscellaneous factors.) My im-\npression is that in minor cases we're much less likely to see prosecutions\ntoday. If there is to be another amnesty, I suppose these should get the\nsame kind of selective consideration because many are rather blatant\ndraft-evaders. I think it would be wise to consider this before saying\nanything which could sound like a blanket call for amnesty.\nJapanese Internees\nThe Board really sympathized with these men and let nearly all of\nthem off, even including one who had tried (but failed) to renounse U.S.\ncitizenship so he could go fight for Japan. I found no cases of resident\nJapanese aliens - -all were American citizens of Japanese origin and\nnearly all refused to be drafted because their rights as citizens were\nbeing denied. The only denial of amnesty I found was of a resident of\nHawaii, where I think there was no internment. I don't really think\nthere's any group today to which the Japanese analogy can fairly be\napplied, unless we make the major extension implicit behind much pro-\namnesty argument that all refusers should be treated as the Japanese\nwere out of respect for their strong views - -as the Board put it, \"we\nfully appreciate the nature of their feelings\" and \"we have recommended\npardons, in the belief that (the Japanese-Americans) will justify our\nconfidence in their loyalty. 11\nJehovah's Witnesses\nAfter a short period of confusion at the beginning of the war, all\nWitnesses waived CO application and demanded exemption as ministers.\nMost were denied by the draft boards and the courts. The Amnesty\nBoard tried to pick out those who were essentially serving as ministers\nby working full time at it, and pardoned them only. I don't know if the\nWitnesses still make the same demand or how the draft boards and\ncourts treat them. I should hope things have changed, but if they haven't\nthen I suppose the old policy still makes sense on amnes\nMiscellaneous comments\nThe whole Amnesty Board precedent is very tricky - -it's\nhelpful in arguing there should be some amnesty, but not particularly\nuseful in arguing for general amnesty. The latter problem might be\ngotten around somewhat by pointing out how much there were general\ndecisions for categories, especially the Japanese-Americans, and\nsuggesting that because of the nature of affairs now we might want to\nmake general favorable decisions in important categories, still re-\nserving the possibility of case-by-case decision where appropriate.\nThere is a very uncomfortable problem lurking here for\nmany lawyers and civil libertarians. Insofar as amnesty is\nbased on the theory that it is deserved because refusers and\ndeserters and expatriates were right before a lot of the rest\nof us were, you get into the problem of rewarding or punishing\npeople because of their political beliefs. The Supreme Court has\nstruck down punishment for belief in many contexts. Many refusers\nin prior wars were doubtless very sinceree--are they, and future re -\nfusers in some popular war, to be denied amnesty for equally deeply\nheld beliefs with little or no distinction beyond the fact that the majority\nthinks their ideas are wrong?\nPossible Questions for O'Neil\nOperations\nGenerally, how did the members of the Board go about con-\nsidering the individual cases?\nHow much time did you average on each?\nWas there a great deal of difference in the time you spent\non some hard cases as compared to others?\nWhat were the kinds of factors that would generally make you\noverride the recommendation of a reviewer?\nDid you operate by majority vote, or by trying hard to reach\na unanimous consensus on each case, or how?\nDid you treat differently the cases in which you were over-\nruling reviewers' recommendations?\nWas there a systematic effort to go through and make sure\nthat there were not serious disparities in decisions?\nDid you start out deciding on general policies for categories\nof violators, or did the policies grow out of consideration of individual\ncases?\n(If it's the first in answer to the preceding question) Well, doesn't\nthat indicate we'd still be following the spirit of your precedent if\nwe made some general policy decisions about important categories of\nviolators now?\nSpecific areas\nWhy did you deny nearly all the Black Muslim cases?\nWhy did you grant nearly all the Japanese -American internee\ncases?\n(DANGEROUS QUESTION) Would you agree that it would be\npossible, and understandable (even if you don't agree with him) for\nan American youth today to feel as strongly and as unselfishly that\nhe should not fight in Viet Nam, as did many Japanese-American\ninternees whom you pardoned about accepting induction into the United\nStates forces?\nHow was it that your Board departed so often from its rule of no\namnesty for political objectors? (See Appendix 2 for list of amnesty\ngrants to such people.)\nGeneral Questions\nWithout regard to which individuals or categories should\nreceive amnesty, do you think there should be some system to\ngrant amnesty to at least some violators from the Vietnam War?\nBased on your experience, is there anything you would have done\ndifferently on the Amnesty Board in 1947, or policies from then\nyou would not follow if there were a similar operation now?\nAppendix I\nListing of Factors Which Apparently Weighed in Favor of or Against Amnesty\nThe following is simply a list of factors present in the reviewers'\nsummaries which appear to have influenced the reviewers to recommend\nfor or against amnesty. Many of the summaries contain no recommenda- -\ntion.\nFactors Apparently Favoring Amnesty:\nUnfortunate home background\nMiscellaneous excuses and mitigating factors as sickness at time\nof required registration\nGood conduct in confinement\nIgnorance of Selective Service laws and regulations\nIlliteracy\nWillingness to serve in the Armed Forces (this seemed to count\nin favor even if a person was rejected for service)\nEligibility for exemptions which were not claimed\nSincerity\nStatus as a Japanese evacuee\nApparent unintentional nature of the violation\nTriviality of the offense\nGood record in service\nSincere religious objection not recognized by a local draft board,\nor inadequately recognized\nImportance of granting of amnesty to the individual's life and pro- -\nfessional career (for instance, if having the conviction permanently\non his record could prevent the person from ever practicing the\nprofession for which he was trained)\nFactors Apparently Opposing Amnesty:\nMembership in the Nation of Islam (every single Black Muslim case\nthat I came across was denied)\nA conventional criminal record\nNon-religious objection to the Selective Service System or the war\nPresenting a claim to be a minister in Jehovah's Witnesses but not\nspending full time in religious work\nLack of mitigating circumstances\nGeneral insincerity\nMental illness\nPoor conduct in prison\nApparent desire to be a martyr\nSexual promiscuity\nBeing a Puerto Rican nationalist\nRace was very frequently mentioned in the summaries, but there\nwas no apparent strong pattern of differentiation based on racial factors.\nIf anything, there may have been slightly greater indulgence shown to\npoor and uneducated Negroes.\nAppendix II - Unusual Cases\nThe following are not representative summaries taken from the\nreviewers' files. They are, rather, cases of either grants or denials\nof amnesty which struck me as unusual in some important ways.\nCases in Which Amnesty Was Granted:\nThese are nearly all cases of non-religious conscientious objectors,\nsince most other cases were fairly routine and uninteresting grants of\namnesty which would not be particularly relevant to consideration of\npolitical amnesty today.\n1. One \"intellectual objector\" who received amnesty had served\nin the peacetime American Army and had received an honorable dis- -\ncharge \"with excellent character. 11 He had been, in the years just be-\nfore American entry into the Second World War, engaged in much\nanti-war work for mainly Catholic and Quaker groups, and perhaps\nalso some secular ones such as the War Resisters League and Peace\nHouse. (I'm not sure whether these two groups are secular or\nreligious.) This person sought and was denied conscientious objector\nstatus, and he then refused to report for induction. There was very\nlittle in his case history on whether or not he had any religious back-\nground. Some of the comments about him which seem to have influenced\nthe decision in favor granting him amnesty were \"fine character\" and\n\"sincere in his conscientious objections. \"\n2. One \"intellectual objector\" had been convicted for failure to\nregister. He was amnestied with his case history presenting the\nfollowing facts: He was an older person, therefore probably not\nsubject to draft but simply required to register, and was aged 33 when\nhe was convicted. He had said that he was a conscientious objector,\nbut he was a member of no religious training. He said he had failed\nto register for fear of being forced to kill. He said that he would have\nbeen willing to serve in non-combat status, but that he not known how\nto go about getting it. The reviewer of this man's file made no\nrecommendation for or against amnesty.\n3. One person who received amnesty after having failed to\nregister for Selective Service was described as a sincere objector\nwho was a religious fanatic though not a member of any sect. After\nbeing paroled from his sentence he worked at a hospital. In several\nsimilar cases, amnesty was not granted.\n4. A man described as an \"intellectual objector\" was amnestied\nfollowing conviction and serving time for failure to report for his\nphysical examination. This man was an agnostic but was viewed by\nthe reviewer as a sincere intellectual conscientious objector and was\nalso over-age for the draft when he refused to report. During his\nparole he had driven an ambulance in Europe for the American Field\nService under hazardous conditions.\n5. One person who received amnesty after having been convicted\nfor failure to register, serving time, and serving out his parole appears\nto have been pardoned primarily because of an extremely favorable\nview taken of his moral character. Some of the descriptions of him\nwere \"very favorable reports\" while on parole; \"very religious\";\n\"exceptional degree of intellectual honesty\"; \"well-conditioned in\nQuaker philosophy\". The reviewer commented that there was in his\nrecord no implication of insincerity, equivocation, or mental reserva-\ntion.\n6. Another \"intellectual objector\" received amnesty after having\nbeen convicted for failure to report for induction. He had claimed but\nbeen denied conscientious objector status. He came from a rural area,\nof a family with a tradition of being very strong individualistic non-\nreligious freethinkers who are very well regarded in their area. Members\nof this family would study the Bible but subscribed to no particular faith.\nThe registrant decided that when he received his induction notice that\nhe was more important on the farm than he might have been in the service.\n7. One man was described as a \"non-conscientious objector\" and\nwas convicted for failure to report for his physical examination. He re-\nceived amnesty on the following set of facts: He had sought but not re -\nceived conscientious objector status. Within a few days after his con-\nviction he showed up for a physical examination (he had been put on pro- -\nbation when convicted, with the condition that the probation would end\nupon his induction into the service), but at this physical examination he\nwas found physically unfit. He then served out his probation period\nsatisfactorily.\n8. Two unusual cases, one of them described as a \"sociological\nobjector\", received amnesty because they were either whole-blooded\nor half-blooded Indians, the half blood being half Indian and half black,\nbut were classified by their draft boards as Negro. Since there were then\nseparate units, these men refused induction as Negroes, but made it\nclear they would have been willing to accept induction as Indians and at\nleast one of the two tried to several times enlist as an Indian. Amnesty\nwas granted in both these cases.\nGeneral Comments. The above cases of non-religious objectors\n(case 5 was, however, a religious objector) who received amnesty were\nfound by going through probably no more than 10% of the files of all those\nwho received amnesty. It thus seems likely that perhaps 50 to 100 men\nwho were then regarded as ineligible for conscientious objector status\nnonetheless received amnesty. The amnesty board policy, however, was\nnot to grant amnesty in cases of intellectual or political objectors\nwithout extenuating circumstances. Practically all the above cases show\nconsiderable extenuating circumstances, and the summaries that follow\nincluding cases of intellectual objectors denied amnesty will usually\nbe in some contrast by their absence of such circumstances.\nCase Histories In Which Amnesty Was Denied:\n1. One poor fellow was convicted three separate times, in late\n1941, early 1942, and early 1944, for failure to report for induction\n(the first two times) and for failure to report for his physical examination\n(the last time). After each conviction he served approximately nine\nmonths in federal prison and was then charged again after failing to\ncomply with a Selectrive Service requirement. The man had no religious\nbackground so his claim for conscientious objector status was denied.\nHe was a person of good reputation and said he had no objection to wars\nin defense of the American homeland. The reviewer noted that the man\nhad very strong anti-British and pro-German views.\n2. Another political case was that of a man who failed to register.\nHe was described in the summary as having formerly been an \"ardent\ncommunist\" who had become disillusioned with Communism and the\nSoviet Union while fighting on the loyalist side in the Spanish Civil War.\nHe now felt that he could not let himself fight on the same side of a war\nwith Russia.\n3. All cases of Puerto Rican' nationalists who failed to comply\nwith Selectrive Service laws because of their beliefs were denied\namong those which I saw. One sample case was that of a case of a\nman who said he would fight for the Allied side in a war if Puerto Rico\nwere freed from American colonial rule but, since Puerto Rico was under\nAmerican domination, refused to report for induction.\n4. In one case a man seemed generally unqualified to receive\namnesty but the reviewer also thought it was relevant to add to the man's\nsummary that his family had been \"a source of disturbance in its\ncommunity because of the socialistic and communistic views which the\nvarious members express.\"\n5. One typical case of a man who was denied amnesty was a man\nwho objected to the war as not being a defensive one and therefore re-\nfused to report for induction. This was about all there was in the way of\nrelevant facts in his file.\n6. A last case was described as \"sociological objector (custodial\nproblem)\". He was convicted for failure to report for his physical\nexamination. The various items in his summary included: A listing\nof many memberships in activist political groups; \"absolutist and a\npacifist\"; \"admittedly is a homosexual\"; and his objection was \"definitely\nnot based on religious grounds. 11 (Underscoring in original.) It was also\nmentioned that the man had violated his parole but was not sent back to\njail since no point was seen in making him serve out the rest of his\nsentence. Finally, he had constantly agitated in jail."
}