Howze v. United States, 16378.

• Decision Date: 28 December 1959
• Docket Number: No. 16378.,16378.
• Citation: 272 F.2d 146
• Parties: Burl Melton HOWZE, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

272 F.2d 146 (1959)

Burl Melton HOWZE, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 16378.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

November 19, 1959.

Rehearing Denied December 28, 1959.

J. B. Tietz, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.

Laughlin E. Waters, U. S. Atty., Robert D. Hornbaker and Robert John Jensen, Asst. U. S. Attys., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.

Before STEPHENS, ORR and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.

STEPHENS, Circuit Judge.

The appellant has been convicted of failing to remain in employment after he was assigned civilian work upon being classified I-O (conscientious objector) by his local draft board. Title 50 U.S.C.A. Appendix, § 462. He appeals his conviction on three grounds: That he should have been classified II-C (essential farm worker); that the proof did not conform to the charge; and, that the order of the Draft Board to perform civilian labor was unconstitutional.

A II-C classification is authorized when the registrant is engaged in producing a substantial quantity of agricultural commodities necessary for the national health, safety or interest. 32 C.F.R. § 1622.24(a). This is measured

"* * * in terms of the average annual production per farm worker which is marketed from a local average farm of the type under consideration. The production of agricultural commodities for consumption by the worker and his family, or traded for subsistence purposes, should not be considered as production for market. * * *" 32 C. F.R. § 1622.24(b).

A registrant is deemed engaged in activity which is necessary for the national health, safety or interest only when

"(1) The registrant is, or but for a seasonal or temporary interruption would be, engaged in such activity.

"(2) The registrant cannot be replaced because of a shortage of persons with his qualifications or skill in such activity.

"(3) The removal of the registrant would cause a material loss of effectiveness in such activity." 32 C.F.R. § 1622.23(a).

The information given by the appellant in his Selective Service Questionnaire showed that he had been raised on the family farm; that he was an unpaid worker partly responsible for the farm's operation; that he worked about forty hours a week, doing "various farm work," under his father's supervision; that the principal crops were cotton (77 acres) and alfalfa (22 acres); that there were fifteen head of cattle on the farm, thirteen hogs, and four horses; that the value of the farm products sold the previous year had been $15,000; and that there were "about three" year round workers on the farm, none of whom were hired hands. He also submitted an affidavit from his father, which stated that

"Burl Melton Howze lives with me on the farm and by taking certain responsibilities regularly, aids a great deal in making a living for the family and I consider him a real need due to the fact that my health is quite poor. Due to having a family of 7 and all the children being in school except Burl Melton Howze

...