Hearing for Conscientious Objectors In California Postponed to April 10

The hearing for a California class action suit concerning parallel induction for conscientious objectors, originally set for March 27, has been continued until April 10.

Scott J. Tepper, an attorney for the plaintiffs, and James, L. Cooney, assistant United States Attorney, agreed Wednesday afternoon to postpone the hearing.

In Washington, D.C., a suit similar to that in California has been filed on behalf of 65 C.O.s. Attorneys David Jones and Don Burris are filing the suit to bar the "processing of C.O.s, which is blatantly discriminating and violating the letter and spirit of all exiting draft laws." Burris said yesterday.

In California, Federal Judge Alfonso J. Zirpoli issued a temporary restraining order March 15 preventing the Selective Service from issuing new work orders for C.O.s or enforcing others issued after Nov. 10, 1971.

Both the California and Washington suits contend that the parallel induction rule was violated when C.O.s were ordered for work while no men classified 1-A or 1-AO were being inducted.

Both Tepper and Burris alleged yesterday that the Selective Service had violated a law requiring all rules and regulations used for draft procedures to be published prior to their use.

"After receiving the petition filed by the defense in the D.C. case, the government's position seems much weaker than we thought," Tepper said.

"The government's answer conveniently ignores a crucial fact: That the Selective Service cancelled thousands of postpones 1-A induction orders form the 1971 draft, but blithely continues to process brother 1-0s who are identically situated. It is an obvious punitive measure," he added.

U.S. Attorney Robert Werdig, counsel for the Washington, D.C. Selective Service, said Wednesday that a longer period of time is required to find suitable jobs for C.O.s than is needed to process men in the 1-A category. He said he hopes to relieve this problem by instituting a national job-finding organization for the Selective Service.

Werdig said be feels the plaintiffs "don't have any chance to win, I think the procedures of the Selective service are perfectly legal.