Ex parte Romano
| Decision Date | 10 January 1918 |
| Docket Number | 1590. |
| Parties | Ex parte ROMANO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Habeas Corpus. In the matter of the petition of Pietro Romano. Petition dismissed without prejudice to petitioner's right to file another petition.
Joseph T. Zottoli, of Boston, Mass., for petitioner.
The petitioner is a laborer, born in Italy, who has resided about 4 1/2 years in this country. He is married, and his wife is living with him in Lynn, Mass. His knowledge of English is very limited, quite insufficient to enable him to understand explanations in it of such matters as those involved in the Selective Service Act (Act May 18, 1917, c. 15, 40 Stat. 76). He has never declared an intention to become a citizen of this country, and was not subject to military service under the act.
He duly registered under it, being within the required ages. At that time he explained that he was an alien and was told-- by whom does not clearly appear--that, if he did not serve here, he would be sent back to Italy to do so there.
He was called for physical examination, and, after being examined attempted to explain to Mr. Reeve, chairman of the local board, that he was an alien and had a wife dependent on him for support. The conference was hurried and unsatisfactory because of the large number of cases with which Mr. Reeve had to deal. He understood Romano to say that he was only 18 years old, and claimed discharge because of that and of his wife. He accordingly filled out an application for discharge on those grounds, and gave Romano proper blanks for the affidavits. He did not understand that Romano claimed exemption because he was an alien. About a week later Romano employed a lawyer, who filled out the blanks which had been given him by Mr. Reeve. Discharge on those grounds was refused.
While the evidence is conflicting, I think it probable that Romano went to Mr. Reeve again and tried to explain through an interpreter that he desired to claim exemption as an alien and was rather brusquely treated. I do not think that Mrs. Romano would have taken the trouble to go to the Adjutant General's office at the Statehouse and complain about the treatment accorded her husband, if there had not been some interview such as her husband testifies to between him and Mr. Reeve. At the Adjutant General's office, Mrs. Romano, who speaks English well, was given a marked copy of the rules, which she and her husband showed to Mr. Reeve on October 4th, the day when the petitioner was ordered to report for mobilization. Mr. Reeve at that time told them the case was beyond his control, and that Romano must go to Camp Devens the next day, as notified, and press his claim there.
Romano did not report as ordered, nor go to Camp Devens. He was arrested as a deserter, and is now held by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Estep v. United States Smith v. Same
...of the order was held to constitute desertion even though the draftee had not been afforded a fair hearing by the board. Ex parte Romano, D.C., 251 F. 762; Ex parte Tinkoff, D.C., 254 F. 912. It was said in Ex parte Romano, supra, 251 F. at page 764: 'Although based on irregular proceedings......
-
O'MALLEY v. Hiatt
...who had been dropped from the rolls by letter of the President, later attempted to court-martial for offense while in service); Ex parte Romano, D.C., 251 F. 762 (alien not subject to draft); In re Di Bartolo, D. C., 50 F.Supp. 929 (one accompanying the Army); Ex parte Weitz, D.C., 256 F. 5......
-
Gibson v. United States Dodez v. Same
...4 Cir., 163 F. 696, 18 L.R.A.,N.S., 956, 16 Ann.Cas. 127; United States ex rel. Laikund v. Williford, 2 Cir., 220 F. 291; Ex parte Romano, D.C., 251 F. 762; Ex parte Tinkoff, D.C., 254 F. 912; Ex parte Kerekes, D.C., 274 F. 870. But cf. Ver Mehren v. Sirmyer, 8 Cir., 36 F.2d 876; Ex parte B......
-
Local Draft Board No. 1 v. Connors
...Cir., 248 F. 865, L.R.A.1918E, 1015; United States v. Mitchell, D.C., 248 F. 997; United States v. Kinkead, 3 Cir., 250 F. 692; Ex parte Romano, D.C., 251 F. 762; Ex parte Beales, D.C., 252 F. 177; United States v. Local Exemption Board No. 157, D.C., 252 F. 245; Ex parte Fuston, D.C., 253 ......