Evening star., 1944-07-26
Attorneys Here
Being Denied
Draft5tays
Even Those 80 and
Over Held Not
Locally Needed

"s'AAAAA6 VII AdWyClo, ulCluQllK
those 80 and over, are not being
deferred for occupational reasons by
their draft boards or by the District
Board OF Appeal in most cases be-
cause they are not considered even
locally needed" a District draft
spokesman said today.
Explaining why the appeal board
IN Its actions, made public today, re-
fused to defer a 30-year-old lawyer
with one child, the District spokes-
man said that for the most part
neither local boards nor the appeal
board were deferring lawyers Of
any age.
He estimated that only about 5
per cent Of the District registrants
80 and over were being kept in Ia
and refused occupational defer
ments, but he said that lawyers
were among them.
Contribution "Debatable."
Although the District draft di-
rector, William E. Leahy, is a
lawyer himself, the District draft
Official pointed out, he has made no
suggestion that lawyers be classed
IN the vast group of men over 80
who are being deferred as con-
tributing to the national health,
safety and interest"
District draft headquarters has
made no of1cial suggestion either to
the local boards or the appeal
panels on the score of lawyers, it
was understood, because their con-
tribution to the war effort is con.
sidered "debatable" and a subject
on which reasonable men may
differ" Excepted are lawyers who
can show they are giving material
assistance to war production activi-
ties.
Two other men over 80 were
denied deferment on occupa tional
grounds by the appeal board during
the two weeks ending July 8. it was
announced today. One of them was
the editor of periodical which, the
appeal board contended, contained
only reprints Of information which
could be cleaned elsewhere and the
other man was an official of a secre-
tarial school. n his case, it was ex-
planned. the appeal board contend
ed the need for secretaries had
tapered of to some extent and the
school could continue in operation
after his departure.
Granted Job Deferment.
Men 80 and over who were grant,
ed occupational deferment on ap-
peal included a streetcar operator.
the Chinese operator of a hand
laundry. an assistant to the Chinese
naval attache and a public school
custodian.
Younger men granted occupa-
tional deferments on appeal. in
cluded a newspaper circulation
manager, two Metropolitan police
privates, an electrician, a bus op-
orator baker, a telephone repair
man, an engineer, a medical student
at George Washington University,
six Navy Yard employees and six en-
ployes of the Navy Departments
Bureau of Ships. Nine of the IL at
the two naval blishments were
under 26. Z
In all, during the two week period,
occupational deferment was granted
to Is men whose employers re.
quested it and to one man, a 90
year-old police private, who had
requested deferment on grounds of
hardship, but wound up in IA.
Two men were granted deferment
on hardship grounds and one man
was placed in lao as conscien-
tious objector available for a. nom
combatant service. A Public Health
Service commissioned officer was
classified in Alb, deferred by law.
Thirty Appeals Denied.
The Appeal Board denied % ap-
peals for occupational deferment
and 2 appeals for deferment on
hardship grounds. A cab driver who
asked for deferment in 4-E as a
conscientious objector was put In
lao and registrant classed in
lao who sought deferment as a
minister had his appeal denied.
For the first time, reclassifcation
OF large number of 4-F registrants
into occupationally deferred classes
occupied the appeal board in its
capacity of passing on deferments
granted by draft boards in other
areas for men working here. A total
of A men unfit for military service
and IA men fit only for limited serv.
ice were given occupational defer
ments under the recent policy of en-
couraging physically unfit men to
get into or remain in work of i'm
portance to the war effort. Most of
the men in this group were Govern
ment employees.
OF the total of 582 out-of-town
deferments reviewed by the appeal
board, deferments were Cancelled in
Il cases and the men were put in
la. The appeal board approved
deferments for 345 men 80 and over
and for l58 men under 30 in addition
to the occupational deferments ap-
proved for men unfit for general
military service.