New-York tribune., 1918-01-31

70 secure uniformity OF decision among
local boards ought to be done and regret
very much that And myself unable To
a8 rec with all that your board has TO say
on this subject ''
:. nc effect Of the ruling, as understand
~, s uat unless. by reason OF rejection
1or military service or prior exemption. a
rexistrant has had fair ground for hccf
'.,. Ina. nc would not be called for military
service. then any marriage relation con-
tractc1 by him since May 18 will be div
reRarded as creating condition Of de-
penraency mer'ting deferred classification.
ur,,, ne argument Is cogent, but it proceeds
upon an assumption that the effect of tho
selective eervice law was to set up a dc
Nrrent 70 marriage among registyants at
leAst 70 the extent of warning them that
"uo. marriages would be disreRarded as n
ground for defcrmcnt, and in this I cannot
concur. N"'o'
"Slackcr Marriages" Reported
About the time Of registration and .n.;n
Just after the drawing in Washington 70.
port" OF thousands of "slacker marrjavcs''
were rife. Records Of marriage license hu
rcnus bore out these reports. and when the
r'',Jn t;on ION; boards began to consider exemp-
hullnH (a). which directed boards to
scrutlhlze marriages recently contracted.
anu especially those contracted after q
Tn, 1SR,lstrant had been called for examination.
MS ruling was plainly intended to roach
only marriages contracted with a primary
purpose of evadinK military service
me ruling was carried over into the
now now regulations with the express statement
that the effect of the sclectivc service law
was not to suspend the institution Of mar
t;as,s t;aee among registrants and with par
ocular mention Of marriages hastily o.
fectcd since May IS.
considered this regulation nersor,1,,,
and my intention was only to draw the ~
tention OF local boards to the eouivocal
class Of marriages l have mentioned Il
was not intended to require boards to con.
n.Ier cn M III marriages since May 1S as equivo-
ca, ana TINS. take it. is the precise df
4erenee between the ruling Of the District
Board and my view of the regulations.
Claims To Be Allowed
In my opinion. each case must he con.
sidered in the light of its own circun-
stances. and whenever the board is con
WINGED that the marriage was not entered
,,a;i;+aS r"IG WIN primary purpose. of evading
classification should be allowed
In my opinion the ruling Of the District
Board for the City of New York is more
harsh than is consistent with the purpose
application will involve US in great dif-
hculty: The rules governing exemption
are left to be formulated in executive dis
cret'on. and. therefore. there is a question
OF law to be considered. I come with
great Difference to conclusion inconsis-
tent with that Of the board. and if the
question were Of law solely I should hest
tate even more than I do in promugating
the following ruling, which is being sent
out to all Governors to-day
Bakers Ruling
While the effect of Rule Y. page 36,
S. S. r., is to require boards to scrutinize
marriages since May IS, 1917. it was never
intended that rule should raise the pre-
sumption that every marriage since that
date was effected with the primary purpose
Of evading military service. That rule was
intended to authorize the boards to disre-
gard the relationship created by clearly
established "slacher marriages. as a con-
dition of dependency. but each case must
be carefully examined on its own merits
No general rule be laid dowA but it
may be stated that a marriage that carries
no eNuivocal circumstance other than its
date is not to be SO disrega rded