And in deciding whether clemency is due to such offenders as the Berrigans, we should ask ourselves this question: Had John Brown's body not lain amouldering in the grave when the Civil War ended-if, instead, he had been serving a prison term-would he have been accorded less generosity than Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee? Only a crystal ball could tell us how the amnesty problem will eventually be resolved. Much may depend on how the war ends. Should it cease at a defined moment-perhaps with the aid of the United Nations, whose competence in this regard has suddenly increased with the admission of mainland China; perhaps as a result of President Nixon's trip to Peking; perhaps as a result of a congressional act of punctuation-amnesty is likely to be quicker. Should the war trail off as gradually as it began, amnesty may be slow in coming. But come it will. And it is now time for every American to examine his own thoughts and opinions; to make them known to all who will listen; to call upon candidates for statements of position; and to carry his convictions with him into the voting booth on Nov. 7. 13. REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT'S AMNESTY BOARD, 1947 (OWEN J. ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN), AND PRESIDENTAL PROCLAMATION ON AMNESTY (DEC. 23, 1947) The President's Amnesty Board, established by Executive Order of December 23. 1946, to review convictions under the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, as amended, and to make recommendations for Executive Clemency, has completed its task and submits this, its first and final report. Before adopting any general policies, the Board heard representatives of interested parties and groups. It heard representatives of historic peace churches, of the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America, leaders of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (whose followers are known as Jehovah's Witnesses), officials of the United States Army and Navy, and the National Headquarters of Selective Service, representatives of citizens' groups, veterans' organizations, and pacifist organizations. Some of the violators themselves, formerly inmates of penal institutions, appeared, either in person or by representatives, and were heard. Their recommendations varied from that of a general amnesty to all violators regardless of the circumstances, to a refusal of amnesty to anyone. To grant a general amnesty would have restored full civil status to a large number of men who neither were, nor claimed to be, religious conscientious objectors. In perhaps one-half of the cases considered, the files reflected a prior record of one or more serious criminal offenses. The Board would have failed in its duty to society and to the memory of the men who fought and died to protect it. had amnesty been recommended in these cases. Nor could the Board have justified its existence, had a policy been adopted of refusing pardon to all. In establishing policies, therefore, we were called upon to reconcile divergencies, and to adopt a course which would, on the one hand, be humane and in accordance with the traditions of the United States, and yet, on the other hand, would uphold the spirit of the law. Examination of a large number of cases at the outset convinced us that to do justice to each individual as well as to the Nation, it would be necessary to review each case upon its merits with the view of recommending individual pardons, and that no group should be granted amnesty as such. Adequate review of the 15.805 cases brought to our attention would have been impossible had it not been for the cooperation of Government departments and agencies, such as the Office of the Attorney General, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Bureau of Prisons, the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice, the United States Probation Officers, the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, United States Attorneys throughout the country, the Armed Forces of the United States and the Headquarters of Selective Service. The records of these offices were made available, and those in charge furnished requested information. The information derived from all sources was briefed by a corps of trained reviewers. It included such essential data as family history, school and work records, prior criminal record, if any, religious affiliations and practices, Selec tive Service history, nature and circumstances of offenses, punishment imposed, time actually served in confinement, custodial records, probation reports, and conduct in society after release. In addition, the Board had in most instances psychiatric reports and one or more voluntary statements by the offender concerning the circumstances of the offense. When the Board organized in January 1946, about 1200 of the 15,805 violators of Selective Service were in penal institutions. The number diminished daily. At the present time there are 626 in custody; 550 of these have been committed since the constitution of this Board. The work of the Board was directed chiefly to examining the propriety of recommending restoration of civil rights to those who have been returned to their homes. In analyzing the cases we found that they fell into classes, but that in each class there were exceptional cases which took the offender out of the class and entitled him to special consideration. The main divisions into which the cases fell were (1) those of violation due to a wilful intent to evade service, and (2) those resulting from beliefs derived from religious training or other convictions. At least two-thirds of the cases considered were those of wilful violation, not based on religious scruples. These varied greatly in the light of all the relevant facts disclosed in each case. It became necessary to consider not only the circumstances leading up to the offense, but the subject's background, education, and environment. In some instances what appeared a wilful violation was in fact due to ignorance, illiteracy, honest misunderstanding or carelessness not rising to the level of criminal negligence. In other cases the record showed a desire to remedy the fault by enlistment in the Armed Forces. Many of the wilful violators were men with criminal records; men whose records included murder, rape, burglary, larceny, robbery, larceny of Government property, fraudulent enlistment, conspiracy to rob, arson, violations of the narcotics law, violations of the immigration laws, counterfeiting, desertion from the United States Armed Forces, embezzlement, breaking and entering, bigamy, drinking benzedrine to deceive medical examiners, felonious assault, violations of National Motor Vehicle Theft Act, extortion, blackmail, impersonation, insurance frauds, bribery, black market operations and other offenses of equally serious nature; men who were seeking to escape detection for crimes committed: fugitives from justice; wife deserters; and others who had ulterior motives for escaping the draft. Those who for these or similar reasons exhibited a deliberate evasion of the law, indicating no respect for the law or the civil rights to which they might have been restored, are not, in our judgment. deserving of a restoration of their civil rights, and we have not recommended them for pardon. Among the violators, quite a number are now mental cases. We have made no attempt to deal with them, since most of them remain in mental institutions with little or no chance of recovery. Until they recover mental health their loss of civil rights imposes no undue burden. The Board has made no recommendation respecting another class of violators. These are the men who qualify for automatic pardon pursuant to Presidential Proclamation No. 2676, dated December 24, 1945. They are the violators who, after conviction, volunteered for service in the Armed Forces prior to December 24, 1945, and received honorable discharges following one year or more of duty. Most of those who, prior to the last-mentioned date and subsequent to that date, entered the Army and received honorable discharges with less than a year of service have been recommended for pardon. These men have brought themselves within the equity of the President's Proclamation, No. 2676. The second main class of violators consists of those who refused to comply with the law because of their religious training, or their religious, political or sociological beliefs. We have classified them, generally, as conscientious objectors. It is of interest that less than six per cent of those convicted of violating the Act asserted conscientious conviction as the basis of their action. This percentage excludes Jehovah's Witnesses, whose cases are dealt with hereafter. Although the percentage was small, these cases presented difficult problems. The Selective Service Boards faced a very difficult task in administering the provisions concerning religious conscientious objection. Generally speaking, ther construed the exemption liberally. Naturally, however, Boards in different localities differed somewhat in their application of the exemption. In recom mending pardons, we have been conscious of hardships resulting from the factor of error. Many of the Selective Service Boards did not consider membership in an historic peace church as a condition to exemption of those asserting religious conscientious objection to military service. Nor have our recommendations of pardons been so strictly limited. We have recommended individuals who were members of no sect or religious group, if the subject's record and all the circumstances indicated that he was motivated by a sincere religious belief. We have found some violators who acted upon an essentially religious belief, but were unable properly to present their claims for exemption. We have recommended them for pardon. We found that some who sought exemption as conscientious objectors were not such within the purview of the Act. These were men who asserted no religious training or belief but founded their objections on intellectual, political, or sociological convictions resulting from the individual's reasoning and personal economic or political philosophy. We have not felt justified in recommending those who thus have set themselves up as wiser and more competent than society to determine their duty to come to the defense of the Nation. Some of those who asserted conscientious objections were found to have been moved in fact by fear, the desire to evade military service, or the wish to remain as long as possible in highly paid employment. Under the law, a man who received a IV-E classification as a conscientious objector, instead of being inducted into the Armed Forces, was assigned to a Civilian Public Service Camp. The National Headquarters of Selective Service estimates that about 12,000 men received this classification, entered camps and performed the duties assigned them. Certain conscientious objectors refused to go to such camps on being awarded a IV-E classification, or, after arriving at the camps, refused to comply with regulations and violated the rules of the camps in various ways as a protest against what they thought unconstitutional or unfair administration of the camps. Some deserted the camps for similar reasons. We may concede their good faith. But they refused to submit to the provisions of the Selective Service Act, and were convicted for their intentional violation of the law. There was a method to test the legality of their detention in the courts. A few of them resorted to that method. Where other circumstances warranted we have recommended them for pardon. But most of them simply asserted their superiority to the law and determined to follow their own wish and defy the law. We think that this attitude should not be condoned, and we have refrained from recommending such persons for favorable consideration, unless there were extenuating circumstances. Closely analogous to conscientious objectors, and yet not within the fair interpretation of the phrase, were a smaller, though not inconsequential number of American citizens of Japanese ancestry who were removed in the early stages of the war, under military authority, from their homes in defense coastal areas and placed in war relocation centers. Although we recognize the urgent necessities of military defense, we fully appreciate the nature of their feelings and their reactions to orders from local Selective Service Boards. Prior to their removal from their homes they had been lawabiding and loyal citizens. They deeply resented classification as undesirables. Most of them remained loyal to the United States and indicated a desire to remain in this country and to fight in its defense, provided their rights of citizenship were recognized. For these we have recommended pardons, in the belief that they will justify our confidence in their loyalty. Some 4,300 cases were those of Jehovah's Witnesses, whose difficulties arose over their insistence that each of them should be accorded a ministerial status and consequent complete exempton from military service, or Civilian Public Service Camp duty. The organization of the sect is dissimilar to that of the ordinary denomination. It is difficult to find a standard by which to classify a member of the sect as a minister in the usual meaning of that term. It is interesting to note that no representations were made to Congress when the Selective Service Act was under consideration with respect to the ministerial status of the members of this group. Some time after the Selective Service Act became law, and after many had been accorded the conscientious objector status, the leaders of the sect asserted that all of its members were ministers. Many Selective Service Boards classified Jehovah's Witnesses as conscientious objectors, and consequently assigned them to Civilian Public Service Camps. A few at first accepted this classification, but after the policy of claiming ministerial status had been adopted, they changed their claims and they and other members of the sect insisted upon complete exemption as ministers. The Headquarters of the Selective Service, after some consideration, ruled that those who devoted practically their entire time to "witnessing", should be classified as ministers. The Watchtower Society made lists available to Selective Service. It is claimed that these lists were incomplete. The Selective Service Boards' problem was a difficult one. We have found that the action of the Boards was not wholly consistent in attributing ministerial status to Jehovah's Witnesses. and we have endeavored to correct any discrepancy by recommending pardons to those we think should have been classified. The sect has many classes of persons who appear to be awarded their official titles by its headquarters, such as company servants, company publishers, advertising servants, etc. In the case of almost all these persons, the member is employed full time in a gainful occupation in the secular world. He "witnesses", as it is said, by distributing leaflets, playing phonographs, calling at house, selling literature, conducting meetings, etc., in his spare time, and on Sundays and holidays. He may devote a number of hours per month to these activities, but he is no sense a "minister" as the phrase is commonly understood. We have not recommended for pardon any of these secular workers who have witnessed in their spare or non-working time. Many of them perhaps would have been granted classifications other than I-A had they applied for them. They persistently refused to accept any classification except that of IV-D, representing ministerial, and, therefore, complete exemption. Most of their offenses embraced refusal to register, refusal to submit to physical examination, and refusal to report for induction. They went to jail because of these refusals. Many, however, were awarded a IV-E classification as conscientious objectors, notwithstanding their protestation that they did not want it. These, when ordered to report to Civilian Public Service Camps, refused to do so and suffered conviction and imprisonment rather than comply. While few of these offenders had theretofore been violators of the law, we cannot condone their Selective Service offenses, nor recommend them for pardons. To do so would be to sanction an assertion by a citizen that he is above the law; that he makes his own law; and that he refused to yield his opinion to that of organized society on the question of his country's need for service. In summary we may state that there were 15.805 Selective Service violation cases considered. In this total there were approximatly 10,000 wilful violators, 4.300 Jehovah's Witnesses, 1,000 religious conscientious objectors and 500 other types. Of this total 618 were granted Presidential pardons because of a year or more service with honorable discharges from the Armed Forces. An additional approximate 900 entered the Armed Forces and may become eligible for pardon upon the completion of their service. When the Board was created there were 1.200 offenders in custody. Since that date an additional 550 have been institutionalized. At the present time there are 626 in confinement, only 76 of whom were in custody on January 6, 1947 TABULATION Convictions under Selective Service Act considered Wilful Violators (Non-conscientious Objectors) (approximately) Jehovah's Witnesses 15, 805 10,000 Conscientious Objectors (approximately). 4,300 Other Type of Violators (approximately). 1,000 Those who have received Presidential pardons under Presidential Proc- 500 618 900 Recommended by this Board___ 1.518 1,523 Total recommended for pardon and who may earn pardon through 3, 041 The Board recommends that Executive clemency be extended to the 1,523 individuals whose names appear on the attached list, attested as to its correctness by the Executive Secretary of the Board, and that each person named receive a pardon for his violation of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, as amended. OWEN J. ROBERTS, Chairman. WILLIS SMITH. GRANTING PARDON TO CERTAIN PERSONS CONVICTED OF VIOLATING THE (By the President of the United States of America) A PROCLAMATION Whereas by Executive Order No. 9814 of December 23, 1946, there was esfablished the President's Amnesty Board, the functions and duties of which were set out in paragraph 2 of the said Executive order as follows: The Board, under such regulations as it may prescribe, shall examine and consider the cases of all persons convicted of violation of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, as amended (50 U.S.C. App. 301 ff.), or of any rule or regulation prescribed under or pursuant to that Act, or convicted of a conspiracy to violate that Act or any rule or regulation prescribed under or pursuant thereto. In any case in which it deems it desirable to do so, the Board shall make a report to the Attorney General which shall include its findings and its recommendations as to whether Executive clemency should be granted or denied, and, in any case in which it recommends that Executive clemency be granted, its recommendations with respect to the form that such clemency should take. The Attorney General shall report the findings and recommendations of the Board to the President, with such further recommendations as he may desire to make." and Whereas the Board, after considering all cases coming within the scope of paragraph 2 of the said Executive order, has made a report to the Attorney General, which includes the findings of the Board and its recommendation that Executive clemency be granted in certain of such cases; and Whereas the Attorney General has submitted such report to me with his approval of the recommendation made by the Board with respect to Executive clemency; and Whereas upon consideration of the report and recommendation of the Board and the recommendation of the Attorney General, it appears that certain persons convicted of violating the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 as amended ought to have restored to them the political, civil, and other rights of which they were deprived by reason of such conviction and which may not be restored to them unless they are pardoned: Now, therefore, I, Harry S. Truman, President of the United States of America, under and by virtue of the authority vested in me by Article II of the Constitution of the United States do hereby grant a full pardon to those persons convicted of violating the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 as amended whose names are included in the list of names attached hereto and hereby made a part of this proclamation. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the United States of America to be affixed. Done at the City of Washington this 23rd day of December in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and forty-seven, and of the Independence of the United States of America the one hundred and seventy-second. By the President: Secretary of State. |