*1 reasoned has tendency to arouse suspicion the Court is simply shrinking from making pro- nouncements about the basic norms of the [constitu- system.” Id., tional] at 18. If an executive war is unconstitutional, he says, but the Court refuses to in- it, validate then the President’s “conduct strengthens the moral ease for disobeying executive orders which stem from his departure from constitutional demands.” Id., at 19.

As I said, the question whether there can be conscrip- tion when there has not been a declaration of war, has never been It is an important question. It is a recurring question. It is coming to us in various forms in many cases as a result of the conflict in Vietnam. I think we owe to those who are being marched off to jail for maintaining that a dec- laration of war is essential for conscription an answer to this important undecided constitutional question.

I would therefore certiorari this case. No. 1276. Danila et al. v. Dobrea, Executor. Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied. John R. Vintilla for peti- tioners. John J. Sibisan for respondent.

Mr. Justice Douglas, with whom Mr. Justice Black concurs, dissenting.

Respondent was appointed by an Ohio probate court executor of the estate of John Danila, whose will left over $40,000 to the seven petitioners, relatives Danila’s residing Romania. The residue, securities constituting greater part of the estate, was left to two charities and a friend of the deceased. Respondent notified tioners by administration, mail of the and they employed Ohio counsel, who communicated with counsel for re- spondent and filed with court a formal appearance. One month later filed his final accounting proposed plan distribution, *2 taxes; charged petitioners to costs of administration testamentary- appointed moved to be gifts hearing A date trustee over the to only by publication. was but thereof set, the notice was personal petitioners There was no notification to either knew to reach attorney, although respondent their how proposed by respondent them. The distribution was approved by probate then the court. final probate

Petitioners moved to set aside the court ground by publication order on the that was con- notice stitutionally denying In motion, insufficient. that the probate court not process question, did consider the due merely arguments by held that two but which plan tioners attacked the of on the distribution merits denying were frivolous. His order relief was affirmed. The question constitutional raised here is whether petitioners, having by once been notified the executor that administration was under were way, entitled to (see Co., actual notice Mullane v. Central Hanover Tr. 306) hearing 339 S. of U. the on final distribution and ancillary proceedings appoint respondent the to trus- property. tee over their A similar issue was raised in DeMarcus, Hanner v. 390 S. 736. I U. As indicated my in there, question dissent the is a substantial one be by should

It is said that the court in reopened effect the by considering administration at hearing the on motion reopen arguments petitioners' to certain going to the Nothing in merits. the record, however, suggests that petitioners hearing had a full on the merits at time, this petitioners nor that any even reason to had believe that hearing, ostensibly this on the adequacy constitutional of the notice was the publication, appropriate time points. (Compare to raise such In alo, re 390 Ruff 544.) U. S. believing that the

There seems to some basis were petitioners case is relic of the Cold War and against administration of this estate discriminated the Zschernig citizenship (cf. because of their Romanian Miller, naming 429), pretext S. since the U. addresses of the Romanian trustee was to ascertain the ap who had legatees, already known to their counsel event, hearing peared any In there should be them. alia, Ohio to inter whether this merits, on determine formulating foreign policy was American probate judge Zschernig Miller. judge as was the state I would certiorari. *3 Lapenieks Immigration 1305. and

No. Naturali- v. Mr. 9th Certiorari denied. zation Service. C. A. Cir. Douglas of the that certiorari should is Justice Solic- granted. petitioner. Robert D. Hornbaker for Attorney Assistant General Vin- Griswold, itor General son, Rosenberg respondent. and Beatrice Powers,

No. 1327. Floersheim et al. Director Department Propessional and Vocational App. App. Ct. 2d Dist. Cal., of California. Standards part no Certiorari denied. took The Chief Justice M. Murray petition. the consideration decision of this Attorney Lynch, Chotiner C. Thomas Leering, Deputy Warren H. California, General of respondent. Attorney General, A. 1435, Misc. C. 7th Meek No. United States. Griswold, General As- Certiorari denied. Solicitor Cir. Vinson, Attorney Rosenberg, General Beatrice sistant Fenig for the Edward United States.