From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Herling

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Jun 2, 1941
120 F.2d 236 (2d Cir. 1941)

Opinion

Nos. 319-323.

June 2, 1941.

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.

Albert Herling, Francis Hall, William Allen Winslow, Howard Schoenfeld and Stanley Rappeport were each convicted of failing to register as required by the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, § 2, 50 U.S.C.A. Appendix, § 302, 36 F. Supp. 915, and they separately appeal.

Affirmed.

Mathias F. Correa, U.S. Atty., of New York City (Robert L. Werner, Asst. U.S. Atty., of New York City, on the brief), for the United States.

James Lipsig, of New York City (Julien D. Cornell and Joseph G. Glass, both of New York City, Morris H. Wolsky, of New York City, and Leonard Lazarus, of Jamaica, L.I., N.Y., on the brief), for appellants.

Before SWAN, AUGUSTUS N. HAND, and CLARK, Circuit Judges.


The validity of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, § 1 et seq., 50 U.S.C.A. Appendix, § 301 et seq., and the regulations thereunder, is clear under the decisions sustaining similar legislation of 1917, 50 U.S.C.A. Appendix, § 201 et seq. Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366, 38 S.Ct. 159, 62 L.Ed. 349, L.R.A. 1918C, 361, Ann.Cas. 1918B, 856; Cox v. Wood, 247 U.S. 3, 38 S.Ct. 421, 62 L.Ed. 947; Hamilton v. Regents of the University of California, 293 U.S. 245, 262, 55 S.Ct. 197, 79 L.Ed. 343; United States ex rel. Bergdoll v. Drum, 2 Cir., 107 F.2d 897, 129 A.L.R. 1165, certiorari denied 310 U.S. 648, 60 S.Ct. 1098, 84 L.Ed. 1414. To attempt a distinction because the present Act applies, though no formally declared war exists, is to import a difference which does not appear in the Constitution itself, Art. 1, Sec. 8, cl. 12, and which was definitely repudiated in the cited cases. Compare the well-reasoned opinions of Bondy, D.J., in ruling on demurrers to the indictments herein, United States v. Rappeport, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 36 F. Supp. 915, and of Fee, D.J., in Stone v. Christensen, D.C.Or., 36 F. Supp. 739. The indictments were adequate to give fair notice of the crime charged, Ruthenberg v. United States, 245 U.S. 480, 483, 38 S.Ct. 168, 62 L.Ed. 414; there was no reason for a continuance to procure evidence as to an emergency vel non, since that was irrelevant to the validity of the law; and the trials of those accused who did not eventually plead guilty were as fair and adequate as possible under the circumstances of obstruction which the accused felt themselves obliged to present. Indeed, appellants' guilt was indisputable once the Act was found valid.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

United States v. Herling

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Jun 2, 1941
120 F.2d 236 (2d Cir. 1941)
Case details for

United States v. Herling

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES v. HERLING, and four other cases

Court:Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

Date published: Jun 2, 1941

Citations

120 F.2d 236 (2d Cir. 1941)

Citing Cases

United States v. Richmond

This can not be accomplished in a short time. One of the stated purposes of our Constitution was to `provide…

United States v. Mitchell

Congress has the power to conscript for service in the land, naval and air forces of the United States in…