Court Opinion

ID: 9419662
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 22:50:51.290711+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:42:12.311016
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Rutledge.
I concur in the, Court’s judgment and in the opinion to the effect that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction. I think that is true whether “evade,” as used in § 11 of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, means a species of fraudulent conduct or willful refusal or resistance of induction. Without Command No. 37 the case collapses. But one sentence in it bears any possibility of construction as counseling evasion, whether in the sense of refusal or of artifice or fraud. That sentence is conditional, not absolute. The whole command, in my judgment, is no more than vehement protest against § 8 (i), sheer political discussion. More than this is necessary.