Selective Service Cannot Punish Resisters By Speeding Induction

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that Selective Service boards cannot punish draft-law violators by accelerating their induction.

The court said the Selective Service Act did not give draft boards the power to impose any "punitive sanctions" other than criminal prosecution.

Justice William O. Douglas wrote the majority opinion which stated that. "There is no suggestion in the Selective Service Act that the Selective Service has free-wheeling authority to ride herd on the registrants, using induction as a disciplinary or vindictive measure."

Douglas added, "We have searched the (Selective Service) act in vain for any clues that the Congress desired the act to have punitive sanctions apart from the criminal prosecutions specifically authorized."

Criticism

The court did not rule on the draft board's power to take deferments away from protestors who turn in their draft cards. The court's opinion, however, criticized the practice: "The power is exercised entirely at the discretion of the local board. It is a broad, roving authority, a type of administrative absolution not congenial to our lawmaking traditions."

The decision overturned the conviction of David E. Gutneckt, a 22-year-old from Gaylord, Minn. Gutknect was classified 1-A and was seeking conscientious objector status when he turned in his draft card during an anti-war demonstration. He was classified "delinquent," and did not report for induction as ordered. He was sentenced to four years imprisonment for draft evasion.

In the Supreme Court, the government yesterday argued against conscientious objection against a specific war. Solicitor Gen. Erwin N. Griswold said, "The Constitution does not set up freedom of conscience. It does not equate conscience with religion." Selective conscientious ob-jection. Griswold argued, would disrupt American society.

The court is hearing two draft cases at the same time. The first was brought by Elliot A. Walsh II, a Los Angeles computer engineer, and tests whether objection must be based on religious training and belief.

In the second case, the government is appealing the decision obtained by John H. Sisson'67, which ruled that the draft law unconstitutionally discriminated against non-religious objectors. The ruling of U.S. District Court Judge Charles E. Wyzanski'27 on Sisson's case, if upheld, will allow conscientious objection to a particular war.

Nixon Fumbles

President Nixon has not yet announced his nominee to replace Gen. Lewis B. Hershey, the retiring director of the Selective Service System. But John Pont, head football coach at Indiana University, said Nixon telephoned three weeks ago and asked him to take the position. Pont said that he turned down the offer.