He again wrote the board June 18, 1953 that he would become a
minister of Jehovah God and be associated with the Watchtower
Bible and Tract Society. He had been ordained in the sight of
Jehovah God on December 16, 1951. He engaged in door to door
ministry. He would be appointed a pioneer or minister on June 22,
1953. September 3, 1953, Mr. Smith was notified by letter that it
was the unanimous opinion of the board that Smith's letter of
June 18, 1953 would not require the reopening of his case.
Mr. Smith was ordered September 4, 1953 to report for civilian
work at Kankakee State Hospital on September 18, 1953. On
September 7, 1953, Mr. Smith wrote the board that he was then a
full time minister and was able to be recognized as such under
the supervision of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.
September 10, 1952, Mr. Smith was notified by State Headquarters
of the Selective Service System his file had been reviewed and he
had been classified 1-O. On November 26, 1953, Mr. Smith again
wrote the board appealing his classification in favor of 4-D and
enclosed a document entitled Pioneer Appointment, dated October
The defendant maintains he is not guilty as charged in the
indictment for the following reasons:
1. There is no summary of the hearing before the board on March
15, 1951, when Mr. Smith appeared before the board.
2. The local board should have continued Mr. Smith's
classification 3-A in accordance with Section 1622.30(b) of the
3. The local board refused to reopen the case of the defendant
for reconsideration of his classification as a minister of
religion after notice that the defendant was a pioneer minister
operating under the direction of the Watchtower Bible and Tract
Society, and thereby violated the defendant's rights.
4. The imposition of work in the State Hospital not under
control of the federal government is in violation of the
Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The first point made by the defendant that a summary of the
March, 1951 meeting was not in the file, does not justify an
acquittal under the facts here. The regulation 1624.2(b) at that
time provided in part:
"The registrant may present such further
information as he believes will assist the local
board in determining his proper classification. Such
information shall be in writing, or, if oral, shall
be summarized in writing and, in either event shall
be placed in the registrants file." (Emphasis
The information regarding the dependency of Mr. Smith's mother,
was in writing. The reading of the regulation indicates it was
not necessary that there be a summary inasmuch as the evidence
was in writing. Cramer v. France, 9 Cir., 148 F.2d 801.