United States v. T. Vail Palmer, Jr.

stay “upon such terms Court to sentence UNITED of America proper” STATES

as power includes a the court deems upon bond an v. to condition the an event of crease the sentence Jr., PALMER, Appellant. T. Vail years, im- affirmance from No. the two 11449. posed upon appellant maximum Appeals United States Court of years. not So also the rule does five Third Circuit. give power con- the District Court the Argued Jan. 1955. upon dition bond an increase of Reargued June 1955. an affirmance sentence event appellant pay requirement Decided June prosecution. the costs of Findings Fact, In the Conclu Judgment sions of Law and of the Dis cited,

trict Court two cases are Hodson, States Wall. 395,19 and LaGrotta v. United States, Cir., 77 F.2d 103 A.L.R. In neither of these cases was the

condition of the bond such as would have

changed, affirmance, penalties

of the sentence. In the Hodson case a

bond a revenue case before the pointed Court and it was out that revenue remedial, penal, laws werе not and hence

to be liberally. construed Before us is a in a

bond criminal is case to be strictly construed. In both cases

last cited it was noted the bonds voluntary. were The Court the Hod- opinion says son the bond ex ecuted under constraint constraint destroy stay will it. If bonds during sentence appeal of criminal may convictions ing conditions include alter punishment they well become prayer petition coercive. The granted.

should have been appellant bond, The contends ‍​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‍that the properly construed, require does

payment him, upon affirmance, of the prosecution. costs There much to position, said for particularly language construed, when the as we be, favorably think it should most for the having appellant. ap- But decided the peal ground, on another there is no occa- point.

sion decide this Judgment of the District Court is entry and remanded reversed granting prayer appel- order petition.

lant’s acquittal, judgment

his for motion appealed. F.Supp. has and he Religious Palmer, a member of Society Friends, was convicted regis- in 1950 for failure district court Training and ter under the Selective of im- Act and he served a term prisonment. release Just his before September 1,1951, prison he was from on registered by in accordance the warden with the selective service registration and his was forwarded Media, Pennsyl- Local Board No. 60 at 5, 1951, vania. On December the local mailed Palmer classification board a questionnaire, Form 100. He re- No. filling signing out turned it without accompanied by dated it but letter signed by him. This December 9th letter, and from other communications Palmer, Appendix as an collected majority minority opinions here- accompanying in. Also letter Palmer’s copy awas of a statement he had made the district court when for convictеd register. failing prior July 1950, In conviction, to that Palmer had written letters, the local board two the second being reply to an board order directing appear him to for a conference regard registration. Decem- On 17, 1951, the ber local board received letter dated December 11th from Theology Dean of the Graduate School of College giving of Oberlin Freeman, Ithaca, Y., for Harrop N. A. theological to Palmer’s status as a stu- appellant. dent in that institution. Atty., Tarbox, Asst. S.U. Frank K. January local board On (W. White, Philadelphia, U. Pa. Wilson February report on Palmer ordered brief), Pa., Atty., Philadelphia, on the S. examination, physical for 15th appellee. for February On to do. failed MARIS, Judge, copy BIGGS, of Form No. him a Chief sent Before claiming exemp- McLaughlin, Goodrich, special kalod- for form HASTIE, objectors, on NER, Circuit STALEY and conscientious tion waiting Judges. February 14th, fоr the without form, classified the board return Judge. GOODRICH, February Circuit On 19th I-A. in Class Palmer No. 150 the Form Palmer, received in the board was convicted T. Jr. Yail ac- not filled out but Palmer court for Eastern District back the district signed by him dat- refusing companied appear letter Pennsylvania Appendix). February (See On pur- 15th ed the armed forces into induction again ordered April 8, the board of a local selective to the order suant physical examina- court district denied board. The tion, 16th, April Congress, and he a time matter for the discretion of again subject Except copies only failed to do so. to constitutional limitations * * very of the letter and sent the local The orders fact situation this necessarily to board pondence Palmer and the board’s corres- case was included in the de- Eighth Doty with various officials the cision of the in Circuit v. Department of Justice and the Selеctive United 218 F.2d 93. System respecting prior his in- Third, brings really to us hard dictment, conviction, imprisonment and point of this case. Here is man a whose registration, these letters and five state- good objector faith as a conscientious is ment constituted the sole information challenged. He likewise be re- concerning him which was in the local jected for service he because has been 5,May 1952, board’s file on when convicted of the offense of failure to report May board ordered on him 20th register. Doty States, Cf. v. United su- for induction into armed It forces. pra. theological As a student he was en- was his disobedience of that order which titled to deferment if he asked for it. in resulted his indictment and conviction U.S.C.A.Appendix, See 50 456(g). If § present proceeding. theological he finished his course and be- appellant, On behalf Palm- religion came a minister of he had a fur- er, arguments several are advanced. The ground, ther exemption. this time for disposed quickly first one most question The why, Ibid. is well asked: question jurisdiction is about aif court knows all this and a local 60,Media, Pennsylvania. Local Board No. this, board knows all should a man be con- registered Palmer while in federal against govern- victed of an offense prison Danbury, Connecticut, in and it is failing advantage ment for to take suggested place the board in that provided what was for him? given place and not the board at the expression among The of differences jurisdiction. Palmer as his home has members of a court is much easier if argument ques- This is incorrect. The disagreement can come on tech- some clearly by regulation tion is 1613.41, answered subject given nical such whether a as set 1631.41(1952). 32 C.F.R. § is facts sufficient to constitute a breach procedure forwarding While the of contraсt in limine. Here we have the registration files cases of this sort policy kind of differences in where there change changed, proce- has been way is little of technical rule to vesting dure does not affect the of au- guide strong us and where there are ar- thority regis- in the localboard where the guments, logical legal, emotional, trant is resident. to be made question. on each side of the Second, urged it is that Palmer having once been convicted for failure There were June about register may young not now be convicted for half million men fifteen military registered failure The induction. service under the ingenious argument theory Training Military behind this and Service Universal opposition (1948), is that Palmer’s amended, the mili 604 Act. 62 Stat. tary single thing U.S.C.A.Appendix, seq. establishment is a The et his mind and conduct and if con administration of the Act was entrusted trary law, 3,920 should be treated as one of first instаnce local boards. Supreme composed fense. The recent Court deci These boards citizens sion in Bell 81, only lawyers 349 U.S. of whom are some 622, 620, 75 S.Ct. pay instanced il without whom serve as matter point. very public apparent lustrate From that case of service. It is comes answer to power the contention. Mr. if this enormous man machine speaking Frankfurter, Justice going high for the to work it demands a de- majority, punishment appro said gree everyone “the co-operation" priate for the diverse federal offenses is in it volved it. neighbor aggression is so of its has a constitutional man No government no moral he feels bad a right call to free from to-be obey anything says. obligation (Ar Cases Law Draft Selective service. logical this is the that all seems to us S.),U. ver v. position Hen outcome 349; States impos- finds has taken. defendant Cir., certiorari dersоn, 180 F.2d questionnaire but fill- out a sible denied, 1950, In board. write draft sympathetic will letters However, a 94 L.Ed. 1372. department other-words, he wants Congress, maximum to afford desirous way. government run his provided of the conscience, has of freedom exemption for complete from service for argument have been brief we In exemption partial for people and some given analysis bear- the authorities an provided rather for a It has also others. legal question: must ing upon when machinery appeal to make for elaborate remedies his administrative one exhaust do not boards of local mistakes sure that That help is available? court before registrant give any result a failure interesting always and some- problem is law. There him under the what is due very we are one and difficult times a handling prescribed for all a method grateful appellant for his to cоunsel orderly exemption these claims analysis However, think not we do of it. way. for the laid down If rules must be way among delicate our must thread we business, they are, handling'of court as This defend- this case. distinctions proceedings of administrative and the only his to exhaust not has failed ant greater they are, bodies, is even there ignores remedy; administrative orderly reason for the establishment system prepared carefully alto- whole nearly procedure four thousand gether. to fill He to think seems handling the cases of volunteer boards being questionnaire directed is like aout young than million men. more fifteen' do not idols. We eat meat offered village only problem had of one If we must be some But there think it is. consider with one board of citizens to society sympathetic point can which a company raise a militia from that recog- say man, you “If us to to a want village there would be no need of elabo your belief, honest nize what we admit is things Simple rate rules. can be handl you although ill-founded, it seems to us simply, that is not ed of course. But our steps to do it.” must take certain case. cases have made difficult draft These quite the in- a time when problems There must come for the federal courts for citizenry years. as a whole must terest of the We list herewith a number interests of both the recent insisted be worth some of be what it pro- Doty States, majority are to be and dissenters v. United al- decisions. very cited, young l’eady presents man in this The involved a set of tected. facts good says, up- do not doubt his one and conviction was case we close to this 1946, faith, against Estep States, war United that he is so much v. In held. organization 114, fill out a 90 L.Ed. that he will not S.Ct. 327 U.S. stating grounds specifically questionnaire Supreme 567, said his Court States, 1944, step only United exemрtion. fur- It would Falbo 346, 305, otheryoung 549, man 88 L.Ed. did 64 S.Ct. or some for this U.S. ther preclude say the defenses asserted be- so much war that he is registrants Estep government cases pay taxes cause he will not pursued majority administrative rem- spends their of its income “had had done the end. All been establishment. edies to to maintain inWhile Dickin- only step be done.” for -this could further or which one 389, say 346 U.S. young son man to other some was .depends upon attention government force 74 S.Ct. given point administrative protect and to itself order maintain judgment the de- had been exhausted remedies of the district court will Supreme F.Supp. fendant. What the Court be affirmed. 122 doing contrary was not in these cases MARIS, Judge supra. (dissenting). Falbo v. United Circuit IWhile am in accord with the views Balogh The case United States v. majority toas the first and second very illuminating. This is re- also case points appeal raised on this portеd (ex- Cir., 1946, at 2 157 F.2d must dissent from their conclusion that applied), haustion rule not vacated his pre- failure to fill out and file the opinion, 1947, per remanded on curiam pursue scribed forms the adminis- 91 L.Ed. 605 open precluded trative remedies to him (with directions consider Falbo v. attacking him from in the district court States), Cir., ‍​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‍160 F.2d validity local board’s orders (exhaustion applied), rule certiorari classifying inducting him. denied, 1947, 837, 67 I think that all the information in following the In circuit file which was before the local in board court cases attention to was called supports conclusion, Palmer’s case procedures fact that administrative had to which came, the district court he of, Tamblyn been availed v. United objector is a sincere conscientious States, Cir., 1944, 345; who 5 216 F.2d Wil- would have been entitled to 1-0 a Cir., clas- States, liams v. United 5 216 properly if sification he had 350; submitted States, Cir., F.2d 1955, Moon v. 5 United the facts his casе to the selective serv- 730; 220 F.2d in while the follow- system. ice support Likewise I find no complete cases exhaustion of admin- in any the record for other conclusion required, istrative remedies was United than that at the time the board Balogh, supra; acted Doty States v. v. United theological Palmer was a student States, supra; satis- Kalpakoff v. United factorily pursuing a full time States, Cir., course of 748; 9 217 F.2d Wil- recognized theological instruction in a States, Cir., liams 9 203 school, which would 85; him entitle States, F.2d Skinner v. United 9 any IV-D classification or in Cir., event 767; 215 F.2d Mason v. Unit- May 5, I-S classification on when Cir., 1955, 375; ed 218 F.2d he was ordered to be inducted. It is Rumsa, Cir., States v. equally record, believe, clear from the I Olinger F.2d Cir., Partridge, 927. Cf. register that Palmer’s refusal to and to 1952, 196 F.2d 986. questionnaire fill out his and his Form already said, however, As we have we upon No. 150 was based his conscientious think do not these cases bear our objection participation in war in problem except by inference because here form, which carry he believes he must process ig- the whole remedial has been length refusing the extreme partici- by nored the defendant. pate any way, in even for exemp- his own tion, procedure prescribed say for a do not moment that this We Military Training Universal and Service is like the rat-like defendant characters obtaining personnel Act for for the arm- come into criminal who so often courts. ed forces. prophet day be the a new or He dangerous may be more than some The district court held that Palmer’s type prescribed rat-like characters because his failure to fill out the forms co-operate, sufficiently of refusal furnished to him justi- the local board organized widespread, would make wholly so- fied ignoring the board in the in- ciety impossible. any event, rеgarding In we formation him contained in its good judge classifying trial think the showed file sense him in Glass I—A. I sending jail. him to in not But it also do regula- not think that the law or the majority us to the that the con- seems tions thus exalt form over substance. right. contrary regulations On viction was make it nothing duty I find in the act or of a perfectly that it is the clear support registrant, classifying the conclusion a conscien- board, local ap- objector should refused the tious be information con- to consider all written propriate placed merely offi- classification and file in his tained n.ot merely his conscien- 1622.1(c) I—A because of the Se- Class cial forms. Thus § scruples participation Regulations provides: tious lective Service participation pre- war extend to respon- “(c) board’s It is the local paratory procedure To hold as well. subject appeal, decidе, sibility impute to the otherwise would be to gress Con- registrant each class which recognized fully posi- which has registrant placed. Each shall objectors pro- tion of conscientious as available will be considered exemption for them as class an vided eligibility until his service exemption intention to withhold that exemption from deferment for military from and to brand as felons those mem- clearly established the most bers the class which have the local board. satisfaction of group. sensitive consciences of all the and con- receive board will The local certainly do. This cannot pertinent information, sider all board in clas- follows that the local registrant, classification sifying Palmer should have considered mailing by presented to it. including file, in his Ques- of a Classification local his and statement and the letter letters (SSS 100) to the Form-No. tionnaire Stidley from Dean the Graduate regis- by a furnished address latest College. Theology School of of Oberlin regis- to the be notice trant shall' pre- is unless trant that appears the local that when thus It board, the local within sented to the I-A in Class classified board specified return the for the time and plain violation of the law in acted justify his questionnaire, which will regulations required it to consider which exemption mili- from performing deferment or in its his file in material the * * * registrant tary will the be duty and determine hear “to (Emphasis respect in Class I-A.” classified questions or claims with CFR, Rev.1951, supplied) 1622.- § exemption 32 for, or or deferment inclusion 1(c). training from, service under and Training Military Universal title [the 1623.1(b) of the Likewise § within of all individuals Act] and Service pertinent part: provides, in jurisdiction of such local boards.” the registrant’s “(b) classifica- 460(b) Appendix, (3). A. § 50 U.S.C. solely on determined shall be tion that concluded there it must be Moreover forms of the official basis in fact for classification no basis was System such and Selective Service made. For all the ma- board may be as other written information point to fact Palmer’s file terials in ” ** * file; in his contained theological student satis- he was a that CFR, supplied) (Emphasis 32 Rev. pursuing factorily full time course in a 1951, 1623.1(b). § theological known school well conscientiously authoritatively opposed participa- laid down thus was It regis- classifying any iii form. was in war There local board that the tion nothing or even a the information to raise inference consider all trant must concerning contrary. suspicion Indeed the his draft status. file his Military opinion pains Congress was at district court its Universal The Training sincerity. apparent specific point out Act made Palmer’s by sincerity exemption his from mili- is further attested His provision for the undergo imprisonment, theologicаl willingness training as tary and service did, participate in the rather than conscientious he sincere students objectors although, process, training if he selective service service. to such

899 willing latter, defenses, any, he would had to do the comes to been if granted undoubtedly may interposed, have been an ex be emption would, service. “Thus we start with a statute authority therefore, upon the hold provision judi which makes no States, 1946, Estep v. cial review of the actions Jo 114, 423, 567, L.Ed. and Dic S.Ct. caj agencies, appeal boards or the States, 1953, kinson alone, course, That * is not decisive. 152, 132, * 74 S.Ct. * may Judicial review indeed classifying local Pal board’s action Constitution, required juris beyond mer in I-A its Class Ng Fung White, Ho v. U.S. 2 diction and void. * * * 66 L.Ed. 938. asserts, however, The Government authority of the local boards “The invalidity of his classification is not are of these whose orders the basis available Pаlmer as defense his prosecutions circum- criminal present prosecution because he failed by the Act and both scribed exhaust administrative remedies regulations. authority Their open himto to secure its correction. Fal- questions of hear determine all bo United U.S. exemption is, as stated deferment is relied 10(a) (2), to action limited authority proposition. for this If the jurisdic- respective their ‘within Supreme Court in the Falbo case intend- only orders ‘within tions.’ It registrant ed to hold that a who refuses jurisdictions’ respective their obey an order to for induction seem, would made final. clearly beyond jurisdiction which is Pennsylvania therefore, and, therefore, local board void a citizen and resident ordered never, circumstances, under de- Oregon report induction, for 0f to brought prosecution fend a criminal for beyond it acted its defense the obey his failure to it if hе has not ex- jurisdiction interposed in could be a * * * hausted all intermediate administrative prosecution under § open him, remedies to the Government’s “Any where other case a local right. position But I do not think that contrary granted so acts to its board may go the Falbo case be taken to so far. jurisdic- authority as to exceed its Estep For in on a tion does not stand different * * * U.S. the footing. If local a board Supreme Court laid down the rule that Congress of ordered a member if a classification a local is with- report induction, for or if it classi- fact, beyond out basis it the registrant fied a as available for jurisdiction invalidity board’s and its because he was prose- be asserted as a defense to a Jew, German, Negro, or a declining cution for to submit to indue- act in law. If would defiance the pursuant tion subsequent to the board’s reopen board refused a lоcal on induction order. The for basis the request written Di- the the State Court’s conclusion was that to hold other- registrant’s rector classification wise, language in the of clear absence to cancel its order refused Act, square the would not with our con- induction, for it would be act- cepts justice. In this connection the ing regulations. teeth of the said, pages 119-123, Court 327 U.S. at In all such cases its action would be page 66 S.Ct. at 426: beyond jurisdiction. lawless and its Congress “By requir- the terms of the Act § “We cannot read 11 as punishment enlisted the aid of the federal courts the courts inflict only purposes. registrants violating enforcement on what- * * * might But is11 silent when it ever orders the local boards gave the which classification the that Con- believe issue. We cannot gress registrant.” sanc- criminal intended applied orders Supreme the to be Court in tions were the I think that how matter merely аpplied no local boards rule that the issued Falbo case flagrantly they the rules violated reme- administrative exhaust failure juris- their define precludes which to the courts resort dies dealing awith here holding We are the defense of diction. the extent reg- liberty. personal A question invalidity not order was board’s Act com- violates ex- who he had not' istrant since to Falbo available customarily felony. A felon remedies mits administrative hausted rights. substantial subsequent loss of order open suffers himto matter, being silent for induction Sec. order For the induction. de- question available procedure leaves the then in final under are loath But we in doubt. fenses effect.2 ac- doubts those resolve ques- the narrow stated that The Court readily infer that cannot cused. We Congress presented was “whether tion Congress departed far from so judicial review of has authorized concepts fair trial of a traditional in a classification propriety a board’s of the local actions when it made prosecution violation for wilful criminal provide cit- that a ‘final’as to boards directing registrant to re- of an order jail go country should of this izen step port in the selective for the last obeying unlawful order for not process” found that Con- Court agency. We are an administrative so, stating, gress had not done Congress re- loath to believe page page at 349: Act under the trials duced criminal “ * * * Act nowhere ex- cus- proceedings so barren provides plicitly for such review and safeguards tomary the law nothing legis- found its we have designed protection of has history indicates an lative making provision accused. The it. The circum- tention to afford local boards decisions which the Act was stances under Congress us that ‘final’ means to suрport adopted no to a view lend give ac- administrative not to chose litigious allow inter- which would customary Act the tion under this process ruption of the of selection judicial scope ob- review which of Congress To created. meet other statutes. means tains under it for need which felt mobiliz- the weigh the courts are not the that manpower in the short- national to determine whether the evidence Congress period, practicable es- est by the machinery made local classification which it tablished a justified. inducting great boards was The decisions efficient for deemed con- of men into the armed forc- local boards ‍​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‍made in numbers the provision regulations for formity Careful made es. with the pol- though may the Act’s they fair administration of final be er- even jurisdic- the framework of the question icies within The roneous. process. But Con- selectivе tion of only board is reached the local regarded gress apparently prompt ‘a there is no basis in fact for if regulations Myers Shipbuilding the 2. time called Corp., At v. Bethlehem physical 41, 50-51, induction examination at * “* * registrant long- result center as a 82 L.Ed. 638: rejected stage. might The judicial that final be settled rule of administration judicial have been amended since relief for a no one is entitled to physical provide preinduction injury exam- supposed or threatened until remedy Gibson v. prescribed been ination. See has administrative exhausted.” unhesitating argued to or- cases.3 Moreover obedience well be process ‘indis- section 10 in that of the Administrative ders’ issued complete pensable scope Procedure Act4 attainment has broadened judicial object’ of national defense. review these cases.5 6For * * * Congress Training Surely Military had in- Universal expressly interference Service Act tended to authorize excludes from the operations process by intermediate Pro Administrative challenges report, only perform cedure Act of orders the “functions ed under have said so.” this Act.” Judicial would review is hardly performed a function under the light Estep case I But in the Military Training Universal and Service language cannot take to mean that this Act, especially since act is silent on Congress precluded, has under subject. circumstances, a defendant crim- obey prosecution inal for failure to an in- Accordingly I do not think that defending upon the duction order from inflexibly never, law is to the effect that ground invalidity of order if any circumstances, under could the courts pursued all the intermediate he has not permit invalidity the defense of the open to him administrative remedies interposed the board’s оrder to be if the prior the final administrative action. registrant had not exhausted his inter- Estep For it will be recalled that mediate administrative remedies. For Douglas, speaking Justice case the the doctrine of exhaustion of administra- Court, said, pages 121-122, 327 U.S. at tive remedies is not an inflexible rule of page 66 S.Ct. at 427: appropriate the law and in cases the apply courts have declined to it.7 Thus requiring “We cannot read 11 as agency beyond if an power has acted its punishment the courts to inflict jurisdiction have, registrants violating courts in the in- whatever justice permitted terests of sometimes might orders the local boards issue. fact to be relied Congress in defense We cannot believe that though even administrative remedies tended that criminal sanctions were wholly have not been exhausted.8 The applied

to be to orders issued lo- present case seems to me flagrantly to be no cal boards matter how exceptional kind. regula- they violated the rules and jurisdiction. tions which define their perfectly It is Congress clear that the dealing question We are here with a divinity intended that students and sin- personal liberty.” objectors cere conscientious should ex- appeals empted courts of and district service. The ac- courts been have divided failing whether tion of the local board in to fol- exhaustion of all Congressional administrative remedies low the mandate obliterat- right must be shown in these selective Congress ed a grant- service which the had 3. With the eases cited majority 7. Law, Davis on 1951, Administrative §§ compare Greene, Cir., 189, 188, United 190; States v. 7 Baur, 1 Vom Federal 1955, Rempel 792; 220 F.2d v. United Administrative § Law 233. Cir., 1955, 10 220 F.2d 949; Ex Williams, 8. 1904, Gonzales v. 192 U.S. parte Fabiani, D.C.E.D.Pa.1952, 105 F. 177, 317; 24 S.Ct. 48 Waite Supp. 139; Shaw, States F.Supp. 849; United v. D.C. 1918, 606, Macy, v. 38 S.Ct. W.D.N.Y.1953, 118 United 395, 892; Corp. Eddy Skinner & D.C.D.N.J.1955, Giessel, v. States 1 557, 249 562- U.S. 9 2 375, 63 L.Ed. 772; 4. Bradley Watkins, Cir., States ex rel. § 5 U.S.C.A. 1009. v. 2 328, 330; F.2d 163 United States Compare Shaughnessy Pedreiro, 5. O’Donovan, Cir., ex rel. De Lucia v. 591. F.2d 879-880. U.S.C.A.Appendix, Estep. indistinguishable from ent case classifying Palmer action ed.9 Its been have that should seen, beyond I Palmer conclude was, have as we I-A

Class that permitted the defense to raise being of basis without jurisdiction, its was induction for his board’s order of the teeth and in the fact in the record already shown that valid. have consider required toit follows, wholly I be- It classify- order was void. when in his file materials all the guilty of a lieve, not was Palmer that rem- of if the exhaustion him. And obey refusing criminal offense prevent Pal- applied here edies rule is have court should district showing de- in his facts these mer from judgment granted of Congression- his motion very basis fense the acquittal. court exemption, the district to which al entitled, will he is the facts on concedes reason an additional I think there is it is stamp For a felon. operate him holding Palmer’s motion solely because perfectly that it was clear judgment acquittal been should have unusually of his nature sensitive of the granted. (2) of the Uni 6(i) Section scruples war conscientious Training Military Act and Service versal pursue the ad- unable to himself he found person provides who while satis that a open him in remedies ministrative factorily pursuing full-time course system. The Con- selective college, university or instruction at hardly gress intended have could similar institution is ordered operation through of the the inflexible until the for induction shall be deferred the ex- doctrine of remedies exhaustion year. Section 1622.- end of the academic freely ‍​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‍to all emption accorded regulations11 15(b) directs the lo of the objectors should sincere conscientious place cal board to such a student Class among who them alone deniеd to those Here the materials in Palmer’s file I-S. deeply most themselves have shown May 5, disclosed conscientious. satisfactorily pursuing that he noting even also is worth study full-time course of the Graduate though the in- not followed had Theology College School Oberlin procedure administrative termediate day when on that the board ordered him proc- administrative to him the available May inducted on That 20th. induction case with the board’s in his had ended ess was, therefore, order in clear violation that order For his induction. order for regulations regardless law the disobedience which final one was a validity prior of Palmer’s classification. defended, of inter- exhaustion could be upon Since the final view induction ground aside, remedies mediate regard order the board was invalid invalidity.10 Permitting him to of its gone less of what had before and since interpose the defensе of the in this case required obey Palmer was not it be accordingly invalidity can- order asserting invalidity fore its as a def interrupting have effect not ense,12 question I think that of ex process of selection which administrative haustion administrative does remedies reason for the exhaustion is the basic really arise in the case. and the consideration itself doctrine right deny say Judges the Court to moved the I Mc- am authorized to invalidity Laughlin join interpose of defense in in Hastie views ex- pres- respect opinion. In this pressed case. the Falbo in this Compar of North eSwitchmen’s Union Gibson v. United 9. 10. Tamblyn 331; America v. National Mediation 1943, 67 Board , 297, 300, States, Cir., 64 S.Ct. 88 5 F.2d v. United 216 Ry. 61; Order Conductors 345. Pitney, 326 U.S. CFR, 1622.15(b). Rev.1951, L.Ed. States, supra; Tam- 12. Gibson supra. blyn v. United whole,

APPENDIX tion as a seems I would be my- my untrue to allowed beliefs if I thus “Concordville, Penna. registered. regret Therefore, self to I be IB, “July you that I feel inform constrained “Selective Service Local Board No. 60 disobey office, report your the order to “113 South Ave. accept consequences and to whatever “Media, Penna. ensue from such action. sirs, “Dear “Sincerely yours, September 1948, “In when the selec- “(Sgd.) Palmer, Jr.” T. Vail effect, tive service law went into I in- Palmer, “Court Statement of T. Vail Jr. my Modesto, formed local draft in brought Calif, “From time when Moses my register, refusal as a down from Mt. Sinai the Divine Com- Quaker pacifist. and a Christian To date kill’, mandment: shalt ‘Thou there they my have taken no action on refusal. growing can seen in be the Bible a reali- Recently I have moved to the address on zation that God does not want men to kill Concordville, the head of this letter — Christ, or to hate. Jesus who lived in a Penna., and feel that I should inform suffering foreign, land under a totalitari- you my presence your area oppressor, way by showed us the re- jurisdiction, аny inquiries in case should fusing fight appease either to or to my case, be made on action is de- Romans. against sired to be taken Ime. will be going seminary September at Ober- killing wrong, “If and hatred are thus lin, Ohio, you my and will inform ad- killing war, how can which is and hatred dress there. I have notified the local scale, right; on an enormous be then how my change. board in Modesto of address fight? say can God want men to I depths my fight, “Sincerely yours, heart that to to be soldier, morally is unchristian and “(Sgd.) Palmer, T. Vail Jr.” wrong. IYet cannot condemn who those “Concordville, Penna. fight country. they die for their For “July 22, 1950 doing very they best know. It is System “Selective Service at least better to kill than to be a coward! “Local Board No. 60 desperately “Men need “Media, to see the Penna. Christian alternative of sacrificial love Sirs, “Dear government, for all men. But the federal July “Your today, passing letter of Act, arrivеd the Selective Service has directing your tome officefor made this alternative much more difficult. regula- easy conference Selective to believe that the command- tions. I have been informed that ment of the state to learn to kill is a mor- purpose likely duty. general, such conference al For would laws should be carry obeyed; be to out democracy very instructions there are Department directly of Justice that few laws that those refus- violate God’slaws. register for Selective Service very purpose of “But the the Selective should called before their local board require Service Act is men to do a give and asked to requir- the information thing goes directly Di- registration form, ed on the and that if know, indeed, I vine law love. that if given, person such registered exempted I I could be as a ‘automatically regis- shall be considered objector, conscientious that would not law, tered’ under the even if he refuses wrong. do be made to But it is not sign form, as was clarified in the only my own soul that am concerned Edgar case of Falls, Norton of Glens are about. There millions of others New York. compels soldiers, whom the law to become my objection believing “Since evil, conscientious they and thus to do that doing good! war involves a conscrip- duty break my with the It is Christian are Philadelphia terma purpose any disobey District Court whose basic law day, register year I have served. a is of and which a Even to so anti-Christian. accept support I cannot this comply and law. my refusal “I realize that compromise such a law! with you sit- may put inconvenient in an have this was understand that uation. Please necessary people “Most feel that war is personally, not, not, intended and is and con- tо avoid the evils of Communism your to follow sympathize desire with I day, quest by But in our Gandhi Russia. up you are set and his have suc- followers shown—and by my actions intend I do not enforce. way

cessfully another there is —that you your po- any whatever of criticism that, in Another fact is overcome evil. this trouble not cause I would sition. Germany occupied Europe dur- Nazi deeply that the I not convinced if were war, many pacifists the last were conscription essentially very concept underground leaders in non-violent move- unjustifiable Christian nation. to a I ments that, Naziism. am convinced clarify hope great calamity I further “In a should so ever enclosing my action, occupation I am come the reasons as invasion or copy I by issued ‘court statement’ power, it this nation a totalitarian sentencing. again among my I be, believe others, pacifist at time of will particularly from this statement that it my clear —and those who now will register compromise from of refusal stems act will refuse —who opposition Selective Serv- slaves, knuckle firmly, basic under and but become will whole, yet I no can thus respect per- Act as ice love and portion comply sonality, other cooperate more decline to with the registration. occupying power. pacifist, Act than I could with For the prison takes more than defeat returning Form SSS “I therefore am away live, to take one’s freedom to filling hope I I out. No. 100 without think, and men act as whole Sons I it clear that consider have made God.” separate disobedi- not as a new and act “Quadrangle Act, but of the Selective Service ence “Oberlin, Ohio simply re- of the act of as a continuance “December register, for which have al- fusal to ready “Selective Service legal penalty. served the “Local Board No. 60 “Sincerely yours, Bldg. “Media Estate Real Co. Palmer, “(Sgd.) T. Jr.” Vail “113 South Avenue Theology School of “The Graduate “Media, Pa. College “Oberlin “Dear sirs: “Oberlin, Ohio. 11, 1951 “December (Classification Form No. 100 “SSS Dean "Office Questionnaire) was forwarded Con- and reached me on December cordville “Selective address, 1951 at the above where I am “Local Board No. 60 resident, Bldg. now student at the Gradu- Real Estate Co. “Media Theology College. ate School Oberlin “113 Avenue South “Media, Pa. you know, my that war conviction “As “Gentlemen: contrary conscription to God’s Palmer, Jr., Year register is a First Vail for Se- “T. me to refuse to law led School of The- in the Graduate This refusal was con- student lective Service. currently pursuing a full ology, my and is for con- refusal tinued semester hours. The my of 16 ference, you time course letter аs indicated requires 90 he is enrolled July 22, course of these 1950. As result ordinarily takes hours actions, Federal semester I was sentenced year won a The most influential of that years. current member This three Many scholarship, group and was Robert competitive M. 'Hazelton. entrance provided guidance my standing. good individuals in have in a student religious growth; any point I cannot order to sent in “This outstanding person present one who is at light upon Service Selective his throw in this matter. status. “My present theological enrollment in concerning any questions are there “If seminary, experiences my past in the opportunity to him, I shall welcome years having study groups, of led 2 Bible try such. answer my having become a member of the “Sincerely, Kirkridge movement last fall would Stidley “(Sgd.) A. Leonard probably be the most outer obvious indi- Dean” my that I cations consider basic orienta- “Quadrangle religious. My year day tion to be and a “Oberlin, Ohio prison sentence federal for refusal to “February 15, 1952 register for Selective Service should “Selective pacifist my dicate extent of convic- Board No. “Local tions. Bldg. Real Estate Co. “Media public “The most direct statement of Avenue “113 South my stand was the court I statement is- “Media, Penna. sentencing my sued time of re- “Dear sirs: register, copy fusal I of which have per- an infinite that God is “I believe you my sent of letter December being. justice and of nature sonal His My article, of ‘The Essence Liber- experiences in the love revealed us ty’ in the October 1951 issue of par- religions, and all of the leaders of ticularly my Intelligencer, Friends letter in Testaments, New in Old and July 7, 1951 issue of The Peacemak- Christ, in the person in of Jesus er, question deal with the of how a con- guides Light Within, Spirit, objector prison. scientious should act in today. love оf men their lives spoken I have led discussions a num- supreme fact for us is God relating peace ber times on matters highest loyal- our universe and demands ty, my significant or to stand. The most faith, Even the and obedience. public meeting sponsored these was at a to all commandment love Christian City, in New York F.O.R. October us, from God’s love men derives spoke my stand, where I forth love others. So which sends us platform the same as A. J. Muste and more, then, the demands for much Mayer, leading pacifists. Milton U. S. justice to hu- human for obedience “I attended School Concord No. Con- authority to God’s will. man subordinate cordville, (public) 1940; Pa. from 1933 to coercive; never he never love is “God’s High School, Chester, West Chester West anything. Likewise, our us to do forces 1940-1942; (public) George School, Pa. exercised with- of men should be love George School, 1942-1944; Pa. (church) I am not out or coercion. surе that force University Pennsylvania, Philadel- justified ultimately force can phia, Pa., 1944-1948; Modesto Junior relationships. sphere human Calif, College, Modesto, (public), 1949- pacifism 1950; my came as Theology, “Much belief Graduate School of Quaker being College, my Oberlin, (church), raised Oberlin result Ohio position pacifist family. My present 1951- . From 1948 to 1950 I worked as a sharing largely Co-operative of a small farm clarified worker at Tuolumne young weekly group Farms, 1959, Modesto, Friends that met Rt. Box Calif. Philadelphia worship, meditation, ‘handy In 1950 did man’ work John early fellowship Wolf, Concordville, from 1946 to Pa. Ave., Walton, 132 Park “My “J. Barnard Concord- have been: addresses Secretary, Swarthmore, Pa., Executive ville, Penna., 1931-1951; ofU. Box Conference, (retired). Woodland, Dorms, Friends Phila- General & Penn. delphia 37th 1945-1948; 4, Penna., Rt. Kramer, 1320 So. San “Wendell B. 1948-1950; Calif., 1059, Modesto, Box Calif., Stockton, . Joaquin, min- Methodist Conn., 8337, Danbury, No. PMB Box ister, manager Cо- former of Tuolumne V; Thompson My parents, Farms, operative Inc. Palmer, now liv- L. are both and Esther Supervisor McDermott, “William K. They Chester, Pa. at R. No. West Parole, Federal Cor- Classification and Quakers. are both Institution, Danbury, rectional Conn. Stidley, Dean, “Leonard The Grad- A. belonged any "I have never Theology, Oberlin Col- uate School of organization. Re- am member lege, Oberlin, Ohio. ligious Society ‍​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‍Friends, belonging conscientiously Philadelphia Meetings, opposed par- Yearly “I am both Street, Pa., any form, Cherry Philadelphia 2, ticipation in war in and fur- Street, Pa., conscientiously Philadelphia 6, opposed any 304 Arch ther am meeting My training respectively. home Con- in the armed forces Meeting, Coneordville, Pa.; any or to service in which I would be un- cord United attending supervision present at ing, I am Oberlin Meet- der the and control of the Se- Sturges Oberlin, System. Hall, Ohio. lective Service “(Sgd.) Palmer, Vail T. Jr.” Society one “The of Friends is peace ‘historic churches.’ so-called Conscription War’, is-

‘Advices on by Meeting representing Friends

sued held in 1948 at the United

Richmond, Indiana, adopted and since Meetings by many Yearly and other groups, say part: ‘Friends Friends faithfully to this are exhorted adhere fightings,

testimony all wars and COSTER, DE Plaintiff- Carl Andrew Appellant, way in no warlike to unite as a Selective Service measure such Training. Military Universal Draft or MADIGAN, Acting Warden, De- P. J. * * * warmly approve civil dis- We fendant-Appellee. Compulsionas an under Divine obedience No. 11312. testimony keeping with the honorable practices history of Friends.' Appeals Court of States Circuit. Seventh active member have been “I June religious Reconciliation, Fellowship organization, about 1947. since pacifist Boy member been also I have America, Consumers several Scouts Kirkridge Movement Co-operatives, the re- movement of

(an interdenominational discipline fellowship), and

ligious (a religious Association Life Rural the organization life). promoting rural might following persons be able “The regarding the con- give (none my pacifist stand sistency of me):

related

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. T. Vail Palmer, Jr.

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Date Published: Jun 20, 1955

Citation: 223 F.2d 893

Docket Number: 11449

Court Abbreviation: 3rd Cir.