ALLRED, District Judge.
Defendant was charged by indictment with failing and refusing to submit himself for assignment to civilian work, in lieu of induction into the armed forces, as a conscientious objector, as directed by his local draft board, in violation of 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 462. A jury was waived and the case submitted to the
This is a Jehovah's Witness case. Defendant, now 22 years old, registered with the local board at San Diego, Texas, on December 12, 1949. In December 1950 he filled out his questionnaire and returned it to the board. His answer to the various questions claimed: that he was a minister of religion, regularly served as such and had been ordained on March 24, 1949; that he also did secular work, averaging 57 hours a week, as a delivery man and janitor at a drugstore, earning $25 a week. A longhand letter, signed by one Eduardo Garcia, accompanying the questionnaire, stated that he (Garcia) had known defendant for the past three years "as a minister of the Gospel * * * now in charge of a local congregation in Alice." Defendant also signed "Series XIV" of the questionnaire, claiming to be a conscientious objector.
At the same time defendant wrote the board a letter, asserting his claimed ministerial status but requesting the board to send him "the special form for Conscientious Objector." He filled out this form and transmitted it to the board with a long letter, dated December 25, 1950, as to his beliefs, activities as a representative of the Watchtower Society, assistant company servant in the Spanish unit of the Alice congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, etc., stating that he had been "ordained" to do such work; that it was all ministerial work; that he preached from door to door and did secular work "part of the time" to keep up his work as a minister, which, he stated, "is my vocation."
On February 8, 1951, the local board denied defendant's claim for ministerial exemption and classified him 1-A-O for service for non-combatant military duty. He requested and was granted a personal appearance before the board. As a result the board reclassified him as 1-O, conscientious objector liable for civilian work contributing to the national health, safety, etc. Defendant appealed from the refusal to grant his claim of ministerial exemption. The appeal board denied this claim and reclassified defendant 1-O, conscientious objector, on August 7, 1952. Pursuant to an order from the local board, defendant reported for physical examination on September 19, 1952, was accepted and so notified on September 24, 1952.
On October 6, 1952, defendant filed with the board a letter dated September 29, 1952, requesting a reopening and reconsideration of his classification.
On October 17, 1952, in response to defendant's request for reconsideration, the Board notified him to appear October 22nd.
At the close of the hearing, the Board informed defendant that it was not mandatory on them to reopen his classification. They declined to do so and processed him for induction for civilian work as a conscientious objector. On April 15, 1953, it ordered him to report
Defendant's first proposition is that the local board's refusal to reopen his classification was arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion, in violation of sections 1625.1, 1625.2 and 1625.4 of the Selective Service Regulation. Section 1625.2 reads:
A careful consideration of the record fails to disclose any substantial change in defendant's activities after his 1-O classification in July, 1952, and October, 1952, when he requested reconsideration and purportedly offered additional new evidence. His claim and the evidence in support of it is but a rehash of his original claim. The only real change is that originally he put in an average of 57 hours a week in secular employment (earning $25.00 a week) and an unspecified number of hours as a minister; whereas, in October, 1952, he put in 40 hours a week as a minister and 40 hours a week in secular work, at a rate of pay not shown. In both instances, oral testimony was taken. What it was the court does not know, but the unchallenged statements made in the brief, as to what the testimony was, will be accepted. The record shows that defendant put in half-time each week preaching and teaching the principles of his sect and half-time at his secular employment.
"Preaching and teaching the principles of one's sect, if performed part-time or half-time, occasionally or irregularly, are insufficient to bring a registrant under § 6(g). These activities must be regularly performed. They must, as the statute reads, comprise the registrant's `vocation.' And since the ministerial exemption is a matter of legislative grace, the selective service registrant bears the burden of clearly establishing a right to the exemption." Dickinson v. U.S., 346 U.S. 389, 395, 74 S.Ct. 152, 156, 98 L.Ed. 132. (Emphasis supplied.)
Thus the information allegedly presenting facts not considered, even if true, would not have justified a change in defendant's classification under section 1625.2, supra. The local board, therefore, did not arbitrarily or capriciously refuse to re-open defendant's classification. Defendant cites a number of unreported decisions of the district courts holding that local boards erred in not re-opening classifications, thus denying the registrants a right to appeal. The facts in those cases are readily distinguishable.
Defendant next contends that the local board's order for him to report for forwarding to the Austin State Hospital to perform civilian work, and the selective service regulations, under which it was promulgated, are in conflict with the Universal Military Training Service Act, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 456(j), 65 Stat. 83. That section provides in part:
Section 1660.1 defines the type of employment which may be considered as civilian work contributing to the maintenance of the national health, safety or
Defendant contends that the Austin State Hospital, not being subject to, or a part of, or supervised by the National Government, does not contribute to the maintenance of the national health, safety or interest. I think a sufficient answer to this is that Congress authorized the President to prescribe regulations on the subject; and, since the regulations recognize and make findings that employment by the State, or employment by a proper nonprofit organization, contribute to the maintenance of the national public health or welfare, I see nothing unreasonable in such a finding or classification. Defendant's contention is overruled.
Defendant also contends that the act, as construed and applied by the regulations and the order, calls for a private non-federal labor draft for the performance of services not exceptional or related to the National Defense, in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution; and has deprived defendant of due process contrary to the Fifth Amendment. Defendant has filed a very exhaustive brief on the subject but none of the cases cited sustains such contentions. They likewise are overruled.
Defendant is adjudged guilty. Defendant is directed to appear before the court on Friday, September 3, 1954, at 9:30 o'clock a. m. The Clerk will notify counsel.
It is my request that you reopen my classification and upon consideration of the evidence that I am filing that you give me a 4D classification as a minister of religion. I also wish to appear before you in person and be given an opportunity to explain my position and the evidence that I am filing."