In re Norman

• Decision Date: 18 March 1919
• Docket Number: 140.
• Citation: 256 F. 543
• Parties: In re NORMAN.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

256 F. 543

In re NORMAN.

No. 140.

United States District Court, D. Montana.

March 18, 1919

R. E Hammond, of Havre, Mont., for petitioner.

E. C Day, U.S. Atty., of Helena, Mont., for the United States.

BOURQUIN District Judge.

Upon notice to the United States attorney, who opposes, Norman moves for leave to file petition for naturalization.

The moving papers, alone before the court, allege that in December, 1918, a state court denied Norman's like petition by order that, 'it appearing that petitioner, a single man, without dependents, and a government homesteader claimed exemption from military service, denied with prejudice'; that the undisputed evidence before said court was that Norman engaged in farming upon leased land and in accordance with governmental instructions he did claim and receive deferred classification in the draft; that the state court found no objection to Norman's moral character, but denied him admission to citizenship because of said deferred classification alone; that said court denied his application for rehearing, and informed him that his subsequent petition would be denied; that he at no time was a government homesteader. It does not appear whether or not the United States participated in said hearing, nor whether or not formal decree has been entered. If the situation is as Norman alleges, and if he can satisfy the United States thereof, it would seem that in good conscience the United States ought to consent to reapplication for citizenship by him. For the proceedings before the draft board unimpeached, its order of deferred classification is a conclusive adjudication that therein Norman could best serve the United States at war, and that to seek deferred classification was not only his right, but was also his duty. And the judgment of the board was entitled to the like respect in said state court, that the latter's judgment is here.

It is to be noted that, to the end that every person would be employed where most useful to the United States, and not at all to create privileges for a favored few, the Selective Draft Law (Act May 18, 1917, c. 15, 40 Stat. 76 (Comp. St 1918, Secs. 2019a, 2019b, 2044a-2044k)) provided for exemptions, some absolute, some conditional upon the judgment of the boards, some partial by way of deferred classification and also conditional upon the board's judgment. Judges are of the absolute exemptions. In view thereof, and of Norman's...