-
11. Pretrial
- University of Washington Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
117 Chapter 11 Pretrial Two significant things happened this week (July 4, 1942) that were of interest from the legal side. First, my lawyer, Frank Walters, came in with a plea of abatement. This plea stated that I was a native-born citizen of good standing and, as such, should receive the benefits thereof. Therefore, I should not be incarcerated any longer but should be released immediately. The hearing for this plea will come on July 13. It is very doubtful that the judge will do other than refuse to accept it. I presume that will lead to the trial. Inasmuch as citizenship is completely ignored, I feel this plea is a wise legal move. On Monday, July 13, I was due in court for the hearing on the plea for abatement. However, as U.S. Attorney Hile was out of town, it was postponed until Friday. Friday came along, found me all dressed and shaved, but I waited in vain. No one came for me. As ordinary, I dressed in my plain clothes on Saturday morn. The door opened and I heard, “Gordon, get ready for court in fifteen minutes!” In haste, I dressed and soon was on my way to the U.S. Court building with Deputy Marshal Jim Bridges. We walked. Pleasant walk, sans handcuffs. The marshal was in a very talkative mood; he seemed to be very sympathetic with our predicament and voiced opinions on Ito, Masuda, and the Takahashi cases. On the elevator going up, I ran into my university friend Eleanor Ring. She came to my hearing. What a pleasant surprise! Gossiped rapidly. She had a different hairdo, and it took a second before I recognized her. Very becoming! 118 Pretrial Frank Walters had prepared a trial brief of sixteen pages. It was wonderfully written, involving a lot of research and analysis. He had denounced both the evacuation and curfew orders as unconstitutional and void, Public Law 503 as too vague, etc. Case after case was cited as precedent. Walters quoted Daniel Webster’s definition of due process of law, “a law which hears before it condemns, proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment only after trial.” Of course, that was not the case with either evacuation or curfew. The president, as commander in chief during wartime, has powers vested in him to exercise against certain people as protection and precaution against sabotage or espionage . Those certain people are all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government. This includes all persons fourteen years of age and upward, all persons not actually naturalized . These people are liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies. Nisei are not included in those classes. But they are. In the case of evacuation, the category “alien enemies” was diminished for Germans and Italians (they are still at large), while it was increased for all persons of Japanese ancestry, citizens or otherwise. U.S. Attorney Hile’s arguments were few and, to my way of thinking , evaded the issues brought up. He maintained this was not confinement but merely an exclusion. It was a natural military step and necessary. (1) What if Nisei were allowed to remain where they were and Japanese parachute troops landed? How are we to distinguish? (2) It is for their own protection, that we are putting them in protective custody. Frank Walters made a very appropriate and significant statement when he said to the judge, Lloyd Black, “to paraphrase what Jesus said, ‘What gains a man when he wins the whole world and loses his soul?’ What gains America if she wins a military victory and loses the Constitution?” Judge Black made a few insignificant statements. I believe he likes to sound off and sound important. At any rate, Black felt that the Constitution ought to be flexible enough to be able to protect itself. We are at war, and engaged in a war, the magnitude of which we had Pretrial 119 never before seen. Therefore we have to take certain measures we feel are necessary for the successful prosecution of that war. The judge also read a previous decision he had made on a similar case. At the present time, he still maintains his previous opinion and added, “The defense has not only to show their points before an open-minded judge but must convince a judge to change his present opinion, which, I admit, is a rather difficult thing to do.” So we did not ask for...