High-Handed Hershey

Apparently not even 25 years as Director of the Selective Service have thought General Hershey the limits of his power. Despite continuing criticism--from Congressmen and civil servants, as well as students--the General has reiterated his determination to allow local boards to use the draft as a punitive measure. Testifying before a House Education subcommittee last week, he claimed that a Michigan board was justified in reclassifying as 1-A a group of young men who staged a sit-in at the board's office; and he asserted that other boards should similarly induct people who "deliberately impede" the operation of the selective service system.

The General went beyond the particulars of the Michigan case in establishing a general principle. It had clearly been the intent of Congress, he said, the local boards should punish those who violate the Selective Service law in this way, rather than leave them to be prosecuted in the courts. No local board, he insisted, should induct a young man for criticizing the administration's foreign or domestic policy. But the boards could decide independently, and without trial, whether the registrants had "impeded" their work.

Stated in these terms, Hershey's principle is so clearly inconsistent with the established notions of the process and civil liberty that he could hardly hope to win the support of Congress. In keeping with the rights guaranteed by our Judicial system, violators of the law should be judged by courts, not by local draft boards; and punishment should never take the form of induction into the armed services.

Other governmental agencies may make administrative determinations without prior court decision. But draft boards are not equipped to operate as miniature federal commissions. The system is so decentralized and the law so vague that it would be impracticable for boards to rule lished by General Hershey are too imprecise to furnish a justiciable standard. In judging, for example, whether registrants have "deliberately impeded" a board's work, how will selective service officials ascertain the intent of obstructors or estimate the degrees of interference?

In any case, forcing a man to enter the armed forces should never be considered a from of punishment for violations of the Selective Service law. Obstructions hold be penalized by imprisonment or fine. For if officials use military service as a legal penalty, they will only undermine the morale and effectiveness of the armed forces. By inducting the obstructors they will support those who argue that the present system is inequitable and should be resisted.

It is no surprise then that members of the subcommittee clashed repeatedly with Hershey during his testimony, and challenged his power to "act as judge and jury." The General's high-handed interpretation of congressional intent is surely erroneous. And Congress should make clear, either through resolution or legislation, that it does not intend local boards to operate as courts.