Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1917-09-10
COX ANSWERS CRITICS
OF EXEMPTION BOARDS
Chairman Of District Board Says No
Appeals Have Conc Up From
Lancaster County.
AS TO AGRICULTURAL CLAIMS
One Man Claiming to Be Large
Planter, Whose Produce Would Be
Of Value to Government, Assessed
Only for Poll Tax.

Planter, Whose Produce Would Be
Of Value to Government, Assessed
Only for Poll Tax.
Edwin p. Cox. chairman Of the Dis
trict Board for the Eastern District of
Virginia. last night issued the follow
Ing statement:
Two communications in the issue of
The Times Dispatch of September o
criticize the methods In which the Dis
trict Board for this district has handled
appeals and discharges. Justice from
Lancaster. complains In reference to
appeals. AS this board has considered
no appeals from Lancaster County.
there can be no complaint from that
county. What has happened is that
the local board there certified to the
District Board sixteen men who were
not exempted or discharged. This list
was certified back to the local board
of Lancaster county for service, as no
appeals on the part of these parties
mus certihed We're taken nor were dis
| charges asked for. subsequently, the
local board Of Lancaster granted dis
| charges to two out OF these sixteen
men. The Adjutant- General called for
tho first quota from that county and
asked for four white men. The county
| could only furnish two white mon, as
out Of the whole sixteen certified as
not exempt there were only four white
men. and two of these had been excused
by the local board. as above stated.
The local board sent all four white men
to the cantonment. An explanation OF
| the situation was made to n represent
tative of the local board. and he seemed
satisfied
ut is not the policy of the District
| Board to reverse the rulings OF local
boards on appeals unless such local
! boards request reversals on account OF
|
knowledge. or unless it is clearly
shown that the local boards have not
| followed the general policy prevailing
| throughout the state, or other facts
| have come to the knowledge OF the Dis
trict Board. In such cases the District
Board has not hesitatcd to do it's duty,
and will continue so to do.
The local board OF Lancaster made
a mistake in reference to two names In
sixteen; IL the same proportion holds.
! the District Board. which has no more
wisdom than the local board of Lam
caster. should be allowed the Same
| latitude.
FEW ERRORS MADE
DESPITE GREAT PRESSURE
LAS n matter of fact. considering
| tho pressure of the time. the amount
| OF work and the limited clerical force
| most of II volunteer. the number of
| errors that have crept In has been re-
markedly small. The District Board
could not have been able to accom-
plish what 1t has unless 1t had been
assisted by the many men and young
women who have cheerfully sacrificed
| their leisure moments TO the help of
| the board.
The local boards throughout tho
Il State have also done their work WELL
and the Prince George County local
aboard. in comparison with the task be-
fore it. should be especially commend
ed. The Richmond city local boards
have certified their lists in splendid
shape and the same may be said or
the other local boards in the various
! counties and cities. Errors have been
made and will continue to be made.
| Another communication complains
| about the conditions In reference 10
farm labor. The laborer therein re-
ferred to by going to work at New
port News only FASTENED the time for
his call. Had he remained at home
his local board could have granted un-
der Provost shal-GencraIs rulings
No. 4, subsection s, an extension OF
! time for harvesting crops II the case
| had been proper one the District
| Board would have reopened the case
for rehearinG. BY leaving the farm
and going to work for higher wages the
| man has only FASTENED the time for
his call and lost all claim for dis
charge. He should be included in the
| HTSt UTdll LOT september ~, ana In all
probability will be. The District Board
has refused to excuse any one engaE-
ing in government work under these
| circumstances.
AS TO CLAIMS MADE ON
| AGRICULTURAL GROUNDS
| Tn granting discharges on agricul-
| tural grounds. the board only grants
these discharges SO long as the party
Is engaged in agriculture. When he
| n "a ha
| is revoked Discharges on agricul-
tural grounds have been favored by
the board. Conditions in this indus
try are such as to justify this prefer
ence. Not every farm laborer or every
| farm owner, however, Is DISCHARGED
If this were the case the quota could
not be raised. Selection has to be
made and In many cases this is diff
cult to do and be fair and just The
| board has to depend upon afidavIts
and such investigation as it can make.
| PARTIES will insist on asking for a form
of affidavit. The government has very
wisely provided for no such form. be-,
cause conditions differ on the several
farms In the same community and in
the different counties OF the State
In one county Of the State form
OF an affidavit was prepared and used
The result was to confuse the board
In order to determine what was right
the books in the auditors office we're
examined. Some Of these parties who
claimed, not as farm laborers. or as
share hands or renters. to raise large
crops, were assessed with no real estate
or personal property. One Of the par
ties who claimed to be an especially
large producer was assessed only with
poll taxes and an automobile. The
board could not understand how per-
sons who owned no land, no horses no
mules. could be producers OF foof~
stuffs. Tho claims were denied. -
injustice has been done the cases will
be reopened.
THE board is always willing to re-
open case for further affidavits IL
mistake has been made. These mis-
takes do occur. The affidavits generally
fled speak more Of the military neces-
sfty than the actual facts What tho
board desires to know are the facts