Ely Cibbe.
HUNTINGDON, PA
W. Lewis, Editor and Proprietor.
Wednesday morning, Nov. 18, 1868.
Our Flag Forever.
"I know of no mode in which a loyal citi
zen may so welt demonstrate his devotion to
his country-as by „sustaining the Flag the
Constitution and the-Union, under all circum
stances, and UNDER EVERY ADMINISTRATION,
REGARDLESS OP PARTY POLITICS, AGAINST ALL
SISAILANTS, AT UM AND ABROAD."-STEPHEN
A. DOUGLAS.
PENNSYLVANIA'S QUOTA.—Thoro is
much talk, though there is little or no
effort making to fill up our quota un
der the last call of the President for
300,000 men. Pennsylvania could fill
up her quota of 38,000, if the right
feeling existed. Before the call was
made the Yallandigham press of the
State wore loud in opposition to the
draft and in•favor of filling up our ar
my by volunteering—but as soon as
tho call came from the President for
volunteers, every Yallandigham trai
tor-sheet raised the cry that the volun
teers should come from the party op
posed to the election of Woodward.—
Ot course, the young men who are
and have,been influenced by these re
bel sheets, -will not volunteer—they
will not take up arms to fight their
"Southern brethren." They will not
"fight to free the nigger." They will
not fight for "Abolition Adminis
tration." They don't wish to be "placed
on are equality with the nigger," etc.,
etc., to the end of a thousand chapters
of treason. We fear they will obey
their traitor leaders and Will not vol
unteer, With such a feeling existing
in the bogus Democratic party, can it
he expected that our State's quota can
be made up by the sth of January?—
The whole people must be unanimous
in favor of filling up the shattered reg
iments by volunteering, before we can
expect to escape another draft. If the
draft comes, as it surely will, then a
howl will again go up from the dons
of traitors against it. They cannot be
pleased—they are opposed to draft—
opposed to their friends volunteering
—opposed to the war—opposed to the
Administration and the Government,
and opposed to everything their "Sou
thern brethren" are opposed to. If
such material will not make good Un
ion soldiers, they can be drafted, taken
to the lines and be permitted to desert
to their Southern friends, where our
loyal soldiers will find them "at home,"
and can give them justice.
Trrz ancient Democracy, the Demo
cracy of - Jefferson and Jackson, has
passed from the so-called Democratic
party of the present day. What is
now 'called the Democratic party, is
nothing more nor nothing less than a
political organization ' under the con
trol of traitors—aristocrats, who would
if they could, , bring every laboring
man•mechanic, and 6. •rner, dawn to a
level with the "white trash" of the
Slave States. The thousands of hon
est Democrats who are made tools of,
to hold up and strengthen the hands
of traitors, will some day have their
eyes opcned,and then they will repent,
but it may be too late to escape the
just vengeance of a truly Democratic
people.
Stir Surgeon General Hammond has
been ordered to Nashville, Tenn., on a
tour of inspection through the hospi
tals of the Western armies. Accord
ing to an official report in the Surgeon
General's office, on the 13th, there are
84,472 beds for patients, in the United
States General Hospitals. Of those,
86,277 are empty, leaving 48,105 pa
dents under treatment.
CONGRESS will meet on Monday, Do
cember 7th. It is impossible• to tell
what will be the strength of the Ad
ministration in the House. The Trib
une gives the so-called Democratic and
Border State strength combined at 90.
Administration 92. Mr. McAllister
from this district, is counted with the
Vallandigham party. If he goes that
length, and opposes a- vigorous prose
cution of the war, we would rather be
in the shoos of a defeated candidate
than in his.
A SPECIAL ELECTION in Delaware for
a Congressman to fill the vacancy cau
sed by the death of Hon. CV m. Tem
ple, will take place on the 19th inst.
The candidates are Nathaniel B. Swi
thers, a full-blooded, staunch Union
/nay, and a certain "Charley Brown,"
a Philadelphia politician. The pros
pect is that he will be most terribly
beaten. *-
,ia-Gen. B. F. Butler has again
been placed in active command. Gen
Foster is relieved of command of the
eighteenth corps and of the Depart
ment of Virginia and North Carolina
and Gen. Butler takes his place.
Gen. Burnside has resigned and Gen
Foster has been assigned to the nom
mand of his army.
Rcad the new aclvertieomentu.
The Supreme Court and the Con
scription Act.
Chief Justice Lowrie, Justice Wood
ward, and Justice Thompson, consti
tuting a majority of the Supreme Court
of this State, haVe decided that the
Act .of Congress for organizing the
National Forces is unconstitutional.—
The decision was rendered at Pitts
burg on Tuesday of last week. Jus
tices Strong, a Democrat, and Read, a
Republican, delivered a dissenting
opinion, which we publish to-day and
ask every reader of the Globe to give
it a careful perusal. Two of the Jud
ges who declare the law unconstitu
tional, were the bogus Democratic
candidates for the highest offices voted
for at the late election, and were do.
feated. Judge 'Lowrie will retire in
December and his place Will be filled
by Judge Agnew, gibing the Govern
ment a Majority on the Bench.
The Phila. Press, commenting upon
the decision, says :
"The conscription law is decided to
be unconstitutional upon this ground :
that the militia is a State organization
controlled by the laws of the State, and
not subject to the laws of Congress.—
Therefore, any law that takes away a
militiaman and subjects him to the
penalty of martial law is unconstitu
tional. The theory of these Judges is
that the power of the State is abso
lute, and the power of the General Go
vernment subordinate. There may
be a rebellion ; the capital may be me
naced; the Goveripnent itself imperil
led; but, until each particular State
agrees upon calling out its militia for
ces, the Executive arm would be weak
and powerless. The great Central
Power wonld be at the mercy of sub
ordinate powers. Suppoie Mr. Wood
ward-had been Governor of Pennsyl
vania in the beginning of this war,
with his opinions recorded in favor of
war upon the North by the Southern
men unless slavery was protected, and
believing as he did that the South
should be permitted to secede peacea
bly, what comfort or aid would the
President have received from the mili
tia of Pennsylvania 7 With Seymour
in New York, and Parker in Now Jer
sey, he would probably have found a
league against him as strong as the
league that existed between the Gov
ernors of Virginia, Tennessee, Ken
tucky, and Missouri. These Govern
ors were men of the same faith as Mr.
Justice Woodward. They refused to
permit their militia to be called out,
and their States have been desolated
with war. The loyalty of Curtin
saved Pennsylvania from a similar
fate. We era also imagine the dan
gers that would have overwhelmed
liberty—for the aid of mien men would
have given the South strength enough
to have taken Washington, and com
pelled us to have made our campaign
upon the banks of the Susquehanna.—
This danger, in every way probable,
would in itself show the folly of a de
cision like that recorded to-day. The
Constitution of Pennsylvania was nev
er intended to be the means of over
throwing the Constitution of the Uni
ted States. And this we say at the
risk of differing from the gentlemen
upon the Supreme Bench."
Success of Free-Labor in the South.—
Adjutant General Thomas; in a com
munication to the War Department,
dated at Natchez, says it is a signifi
cant fact that, while transports in the
river have been frequently fired into
by the rebels, not a single shot has
boon fired from that lino of river cov
ered by leased plantations, extending
for seventy-five miles above 'Vicksburg
which shows tho importance to com
merce of lining the river with loyal
population.
_,Tnr_farmers around Dayton, Ohio,
made a grand domonsiTalitiiiiii — tblit
city on Saturday, a week, bringing in
three hundred and twenty-five loads of
wood, twenty-eight dray loads of flour
and sixty wagon loads of farm prod
uce, for the families of volunteers.
They promise to repeat the donation
in January.
AT Muscatine, lowa, recently, two
hundred persons turned out and wor
ked two days in digging potatoes for
the benefit of the soldiers' families in
that vicinity. The enterprise was di
rected by the women of the town, who
had planted and 'wooded' the crop in
a twenty-acre "patch" given for the
purpose.
Charleston Mug Fall.—A newspa
per editor who arrived at Baltimore
on Saturday morning from Charles
ton bar via Fortress Monroe, expres
ses great confidence in the progress of
the operations of our army and navy
at that point, and eutertaius the belief
that the forces of the United States
will be in possession of Charleston ear
ly next month.
THE tenor of the information bro't
in by deserters and refugees, as to the
alarm in the South, and especially in
Richmond, in consequence of the food
famine, is infinitely beyond what the
Richmond papers venture to divulge.
Starvation in the Rebel Prisons.—The
Rev. 1L Trumbull, of tho 18th Con
necticut regiment, who
, has boon a
prisoner at Richmond, was exchanged
last Wednesday. Ho says that for
two days previous to his leaving the
Libby Prison the officers' daily rations
consisted only of about one-third of a
pound of bread with water. No moat
had been served for several days.
The rebel quartermaster explained
to our prisoners that It was not his
fault that they were thus
_deprived of
the necessaries of life, as
_he had no
meat to give them, and had op that
day been entirely unable to furnish
anything whatever to the prisoners on
Belle Island. It was with great diffi
culty that he could got a small supply
of meat for the hospitals.
The Conscription Act and the
Supreme Court.
Dissenting Opinion of Judge Strong---
He Marine the Constitiltionality of the
Act.
[From Um Pittsburg Despatch , Nov. 111
. We published yesterday the opin
ion ofJ edge Lowrio, of the Supreme
Court, affirming, substantially, the un
constitutionality of the Conscription
Act, in which opinion Judges Wood
ward and Thompson concurred. Judg
es Strong and Reed filed dissenting
opinions, one of which we publish in
full. It will be seen that Judge Strong
differs altogether from Lowrie in the
construction to be
. placed upon the
constitutional provisions for raising ar
mies, ouo affirming that a power so es
sential to the existence of the Govern
ment, as the raising of troops by draft
is clearly conveyed by the instrument;
the other that the possession of such
powers by the General Government
would open the door for tin abuse of
power and that horefore it could not
have been the design of the framers of
the Constitution to confer them upon
the General Government. Upon these
widely different views the two opin
ions are based, and the people must
estimate the authors in aces rdance
with the standard thus set up. At a
moment when the very existence of
the Government is threatened by a
radical interpretation of the doctrine
of State Rights, the people will not
look with favor upon a Judge who con
strues the Constitution in favor of that
doctrine, and against the power of the
Government to defend itself.
Opinion of Strong, J.—The complain- I
ants having been enrolled and drafted
under the provisions of the Act of Con-
gross, of March 3d, 1863, entitled "An
act for enrolling and calling out the
National forces, and for other purpo
ses," have presented their bills in this
Court against the persons who consti
tute the board of enrollment, and a-'
gainst the enrolling officers, praying !
that they may be enjoined against
proceedings under the act of 'Congress!
with the requisition, enrollment and
draft of citizens of the Commonwealth
and of persons of foreign birth, who
have declared their intention to bo
come citizens under and in pursuance
of the laws, to perform compulsory
military duty in the service of the Uni
ted States, and particularly that the
defendants may be enjoined from all
proceedings against the persons of the
complainants, under pretence of exe
cuting the said law of the United States
The bills having been filed, motions
are now made for preliminary injunc
tions, until final hearing. These mo
tions have been argued only on the
part of the complainants. Wo have
therefore before us nothing but the
bills and the special affidavits of the
complainants.
It is to be noticed that neither the
bills nor the accompanying affidavits
aver that the complainants aro not
subject to enrollment and draft into
the military service of the United
States, under the act of Congress, if
the act be valid, nor is it asserted that
they have been improperly or frau
dulently drawn. It is not alleged that
the defendants have done anything, or
that they propose to do anything not
warranted or required by the words
and spirit of the enactment. The com
plainants rest wholly upon the asser
tion that the act of Congress is uncon
stitutional, and, therefore, void. It is
denied that there is any power in the
federal government to compel the mil
itary service of a citizen by direct ac
tion upon him, and it is insisted that
Congress can constitutionally raise ar
mies in no other way than by volunta
ry enlistments.
The necessity of vesting in the Fed
eral Government power to raise, sup
port and employ a military force was
plain to the framers of the Constitu
tion, as well as to the people of the
States by whom it was ratified. This
is manifested by many provisions of
that instrument, as well as by its gen
!
oral purpose, declared to be for "com
tykon-AarartecO_____lmiced_such_., a_nower
is necessary to preserve the existence
of any independent government, and
none has over existed without it. It
was, therefore, expressly ordained in
the eighth article, that the Congress
' of the United States should have pow
er to "provide for calling forth the
militia to execute the laws of the UM
! on, sappross insurrections and repel
invasions." It was also ordained that
they should have power to provide for
organizing, arming and disciplining
the militia, and for governing such
part of them as may bo employed in
the service of the United States, re
serving to the States respectively, the
appointment of the officers and the au
thority of training the militia accor
ding to the discipline prescribed by
Congress.
Nor is this all. It is obvious that if
the grant of power to have a military
force bad stopped hero, it would not
have answered all the purposes for
which the Government was formed. It
was intended to frame a government'
that would make a new member in the
family of nations. To this end, with
in a limited sphere, every attribute of
sovereignty was given. To it was
delegated the absolute and unlimited
power of making treaties with other
nations, a power explicitly denied to
the States. This unrestricted power
of making treaties involved the possi
bility of offensive and defensive alli
ances. Under such treaties the now
government might bo required to send
armies beyond the limits of its terri
torial jurisdiction. And, in fact, at
the time when the Constitution was
formed, a treaty of alliance offensive
and defensive was in existence between
the old Confederacy and the Govern
ment
of France. Yet more. Apart
from the obligations assumed by treaty
it was well known that there are
many cases, where the rights of a na
tion, and its citizens, cannot bo pro
tected, or vindicated within its own
boundaries. But the power conferred
upon Congress over the militia is in
sufficient to enable the fulfillment of
the demands of such treaties, or to
protect the rights of the Government,
or its citizens, in those cases in. which
protection must be sought beyond the
territorial limits of the country. The
power to call the militia into the ser
vice of the Federal Government is lim
ited by express terms. -It reached on
ly three cases. The call may be made
to 4 Lexec,ute the laws of the Union, to
supprossimumetioas and to repel in
vasions," and for no other uses. The
militia, cannot be summoned for tho
invasion of a country without the lim
its of the United States. They cannot
be employed, therefore, to execute
treaties of offensive alliance, nor in
any case whei.e military power is nee
ded abroad, to enforce rights necessa
rily sought in' foreign lands. This
must have been understood by the fra
mers of the Constitution, and it was
for such reasons, doubtless, that other
power to raise and maintain a military
three were conferred upon Congress,
in addition to those which were given
over the militia. By the same sec
tion of the eighth article of the Con
stitution, it was ordained, in words of
the largest meaning, that Congress
should have power to "raise and sup
port armies," a power not to he con
founded with that given over the mi
litia of the country. Unlike that, it
was unrestricted, unless it be consid
ered a restriction that appropriations
of money to the use of raising and
supporting armies were forbidden for
a longer term than two years. In ono
sense this was a practical restriction.
Without appropriations no army can
be maintained, and the limited period
for which appropriations can be made,
enables the people to pass judgment
upon the maintenance and even exis- !
tence of the army every two years,
and in every new Congress. But in
the clause conferring authority to raise
' armies,:no limitation is imposed other
than this direct one, either upon the
magnitude of the force which Congress
is empowered to raise, or upon the use
for which it may be employed, or upon
the mode iu which the army may be
raised. If there be any restriction up
on the mode of exercising the power,
it must be found elsewhere than in
the clause of the Constitution that con
ferred it. And, if a restricted mode
of exercise was intended, it is remark
able that it was not expressed, when
limitations were so carefully imposed
upon the power given to call for the
militia, and, more especially, when,
as it appears from the prohibition of
appropriations for the army for a lon
ger term than two years, the subject
of limiting the power was directly be
fore the minds of the authors of the
Constitution.
This part of the Constitution, like
every other, must be held to mean
what its framers, and the people who
adopted it, intended it should mean.
We are not at liberty to read it in any
other sense. We cannot insort restric
tions upon powers given in unlimited
terms, any more than we can strike
out restrictions imposed.
There is sometimes great confusion
of ideas in the consideration of ques
tions arising under the . Constitution
of the United States, caused by mis
apprehension of a well recognized and
often repeated principle. It is said,
and truly said, that the Federal Gov
ernment is ono of.limited powers. It
has no other than such as are express
ly given to it,
and such as (in the lan
guage of the Constitution itself) "are
necessary and proper for carrying in
to execution" the powers expressly
given. By the tenth article of the
amendments it is ordained that the
powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution, nor prohib
ited by it to the States, are reserved
to the States, respectively; or to the
people. Of course there can be no
presumption in facer athe ,evictso_
o f a powe r so ught to be exercised by
Congress. it must be found in the
Constitution. But this principle is
misapplied when it is used, as is some
times the case, to restrict the right to
exercise a power expressly given. It
is of value when the inquiry is wheth
er a power has been conferred, but of
no avail to strip a power given in gen
eral terms, of any of its attributes.
The power of the Federal Government
are limited in number, not in their na
ture. A power vested in Congress is
as ample, as it would be if possessed
by any other Legislature, none the
less because hold by the Federal Gov
ernment. It is not enlarged or dim
inished by the character of its posses
sor. Congress has no power to borrow
money. Is it any less the power of a
State to borrow money? Because the
powers which a State Government has,
will it be contended that it cannot
borrow money, or regulate commerce,
or fix a standard of weights and mea
sures, in the same way, by the same
means, and to the same extent, as any
State might have done had no Feder
al Constitution over been formed ? If
not, and surely this will not be con
tended, why is not the Federal power
to raise armies as largo, and as unfet
tered in the mode in which it may be
exercised, as was the power to raise
armies possessed by the States before
1787, and possessed by them now, in
time of war? If they were not restric
ted to voluntary enlistments iu procu
ring a military force, upon what prin
ciple can Congress be ? In Gibbons
vs. Ogden, 9 Wheaton, 196, the Su
premo Court of the United States laid
down the principle that all the powers
vested by the Constitution in Congress
aro complete in themselves, and may
be exercised to their utmost extent,
and that there are no limitations upon
them, other than such as aro prescri
bed in the Constitution.
It is not difficult to ascertain what
must have been intended by the foun
ders of the Government when they
conferred upon Congress the power to
"raise armies.", At the time when the
Constitution was formed, and when it
was submitted to.tho people for adop
tion, the mode of raising armies by co
ercion, by enrollment, classification
and draft, as well as by voluntary en
listment, was well known, practiced
in other countries ; and familiar to the
people of the different States. In 1756
but a short time before the Revolution
ary War, a British statute had enac
ted that all persons without employ
ment might bo seized and coerced in
to the military service of the kingdom.
The act may be found at length in
Ruffhead's British Statutes at large,
vol. 7, page 625. Another act of a
similar character was passed in 1757,
British Statutes at large, vol. 8, p. 11.
Bath wore enacted under the adminis
tration of Wm. Pitt, afterwards Lord
Chatham, reputed to have been ono of
the staunchest friends of English lib
erties. They wore founded upon a
principle always recognized in tho Bo
man Empire, and asserted by all mod
ern civilized Governments, that every
able-bodied man, capable of bearing
arms, owes personal military service
to the Government which protects
him. Lord Chatham's acts wore harsh
and unequal in their operations, much
more so than the not of Collgro3l now
assailed. They reached Only a select
raisin of the able-bodied the
coMmitnity, and they opened *hie a
door for fisvoritism'and other abuses.
For these reasons, • they must htive
been the more prominently before the
eyes of the framers of the Federal Con- -
stitution, when they were providing
safeguards to liberty, and checks to
arbitrary power. Yet iu full view of
such enactments they conferred upon
Congress an unqualified power to raise
armies. And, still more than this, co
ercion into military service by classi
fication and draft from the able-bod
ied men of the country 'was to them a
well known mode of raising armies in
the different States which confedera
ted to carry on the revolutionary war.
It was equally well known to the peo
ple who ordained and established the
Constitution "expressly in order to
form a more perfect union, establish
justice, ensure domestic tranquility,
provide fbr the common defense, and
secure the blessings of liberty for them
selves and their posterity."
It is an historical fact that during
the latest stages of the war, the armies
of the country were raised not alone
by voluntary enlistment, but also. by
coercion, and that the liberties and in
dependence sought to be secured by
, the Constitution were gained by sol
diers made such, not by their own
voluntary choice, but by compulsory
draft. Chief Justice Marshall, himself
a soldier of the Revolution, than whom
no ono was better acquainted with
Revolutionary history, in his life of
Washington (vol. 3, page 241), when
describing the mode in which the ar
mies of the Government were raised,
makes the following statement: "In
general, the assemblies (of the States)
followed the examples of Congress,
and apportioned on the several coun
ties within the State the quota to be
furnished by each. This division of
the State was again to be subdivided
into classes, and each class was to fur
nish a man by contributions or taxes
imposed on itself. In some instances a
draft was to be used in the last resort"
This mode of recruiting the army by
draft in revolutionary times, is also
mentioned in Ramsey's Life of Wash
ington (vol. 2, page 246), where it is
said, "When voluntary enlistments fell
short of the proposed numbers, the de
ficiencies were, by the laws of the sev
eral States, to be made up by drafts or
lots from the militia." • Thus it is man
ifest that when the members of the
Convention proposed to confer upon
Congress the power to raise armies, in
unqualified terms, and when the peo
ple of the United States adopted the
Constitution, they had in full view
compulsory drafts from the population
of the country, as a known and autho
rized mode of raising them. The mem
ory of the resolution was then recent.
It was universally known that it had
been found impossible to raise suffi
cient armies by voluntary enlistment,
and that compulsory draft had been
resorted to. If;. then, in construing
the Constitution, we are to seek for,
and be guiddd by the intentions of its
authors, there is no room to doubt.—
Had any liinitaisni upon the mode of
raising armies IXiin intended, it must
have been expressed. It would not
have been left to be gathered from
doubtful conjecture. It is incredible
that when the power was given in
-words of the largest signification, it
was meant to restrict its exercise to a
single mode—that of voluntary enlist
ment—when it was known that en
listments had been tried and found inef
fective,andthat coercion had been found
necessary. The members of the conven
tion were citizens of the several States,
each a sovereign,
and each having pow
er to raise a military force by draft; a
power which morn than one of them
had exercised. By the Constitution,
the authority to raise such a force was
to be taken from the States partially,
and delegated to the new government
about to be formed. No State was to
be allowed to keep troops in time of
peace. The whole power of raising
and supporting armies, except in time
of war, was to be conferred upon Con
gress. Necessarily with it was given
the moans of carrying it into full effect.
---Isrgrss ths ss.tt e ssss_
city to employ means for the execu
tions of any powers delegated to it,
that aro prohibited by the spirit of the
Constitution, or that aro inconsistent
with the reserved rights of the States,
or the inalienable rights of a.citizen.
The means used must be lawful means.
But I have not been shown, and I am
unable 'to perceive, that compelling
military service iu the 'armies of the
United States, not by arbitrary con
scription, but, as this act of Congress
directs, by enrolment of all the able
bodied male citizens of the United
States, and persons of foreign birth
who have declared their intention to
become citizens, between the ages of
twenty and forty-five, with some few
exceptions,) and by draft by lot, from
those enrolled, infringes upon any re
served rights of the States or interferes
with any Constitutional rights of a
private citizen. If personal service
may be compelled—if it is common
'duty, this is certainly the fairest and
most equal mode of distributing the
public burden.
It was urged in the argument that
coercion of personal services in the ar
mies is an invasion of the right of civil
liberty. The argument was urged in
strange forgetfuless of what civil lib
erty is. In every free government the
citizen, or subject; surrenders a portion
of his absolute rights in order that the
remainder may be protected and 'pre
served.' There can be no government
at all, where the subject retains unre
strained liberty to act as he pleases,
and is under no obligation to the
State. That is undoubtedly the best
Government which imposes the fewest
restraints, while it secures ample pro
tection to all under it. But no Gov
ernment has ever existed, none can
exist without a right to the personal
military services of all its able•bodied.
men. The right to civil liberty in this
country never included a right to ex
emption from such service. Before
the Federal Constitution was formed,
the citizens of the different States owed
it to the governments under which
• they lived, and' it was exacted. The
militia systems of the States then as
serted it, and they have continued to
assert it over since. They assort it
now. No ono doubts the power of a
State to Compel its militia into person
al service, and no ono has over conten
ded that such compulsion invades any
right of civil liberty. On the: contra
ry, it is conceded that the right of civ
il liberty is subject to such power in
t the State Governments, and the histo
ry of the period immediately antece
dent to the adoption of the Federal
Constitution shows that it was then
admitted. Is civil liberty now, a dif-
ferent thing from what it,.was when
the Constitution was formed ? It is
hetter'protected by the provisions of
the Constitution, but are the oblige
ticins of a citizen to the - Oovernment
any loss now than they were then?—
This cannot be maintained. If, then,
coercion into military service was no
invasion of the rights of civil liberty
enjoyed by the people of the 'States.
before. the Tetleral Constitution- bad
any existence, it cannot be.now.
Again, it is insisted that. if the pow
er given to Congress to raise and sup
port armies be construed' to warrant
the compulsion of citizens into military
service, it must be held to authorize
arbitrary seizures of property for the
support of the army. The force of
the objection is not apparent. Con
fessedly, the army must be raised by,
legal means. By such means it, mast
also bo supported. - It has already
been shown that enrollment and draft
are not illegal ; that to make them ille
gal, a prohibition must be found in the
letter or in the spirit of the Constitu
tion. Arbitrary seizures of private
property for the support of the army
are illegal and prohibited. Not only
does the Constitution point out the
mode in which provision shall be made
for the support of the army, but in
numerous provisions, it protects the
people against deprivation of property
without compensation and duo course
of law. Exemption from such 83'ZIIITS
was always an asserted and generally
an admitted right, while exemption
from liability to being compelled to the
performance of military service; was,
as has been seen, never claimed.—
There aro, therefore, - limitations upon
the means which may be used for the
support of the army, while none are
imposed upon the means of raising it.
Again, it is said this act of Congress
is a violation of the Constitution, be
cause it makes a drafted man punisha
ble as a deserter before he is mustered
into service. The contrary was de
dared by Chief Justice Marshall, when
delivering the judgment of the Su
preme Court of the United States in
Llouston vs Moore, 5 Wheaton. Un
der the act of 1795; the drafted men
were not declared to be subject to mil
itary law until mustered into service.
This is the act of which "Judge Story
speaks in his, commentaries. But in
the opinion of Judge Marshall, Con
gress might have declared them in
service from the time of the draft,'pre
eisely what this act of Congress does.
Judge Marshall's opinion, of course,
explodes this objection.
The argument most pressed, in sup
port of the alleged unconstitutionality
of the net of Congress is that it inter
feres with the reserved rights of the
States over their own militia. It is
said the draft takes a portion of' those
who owe military service to the States,
and thus diminishes the power of the
States to protect themselves. The
States, it is claimed, retain the-princi
pal power over the militia, and there
fore the power given to Congress to
raise armies must be so construed as
not to destroy or impair that power of
the States, If, say the complainants,
Congress may draft into their armies,
and compel the service of a_portipn of
the State militia, they may "iziiii:;sl,7
whole, and thus the entire power of
the States over them be annulled for
want of any subject upon which it can
act. I have stated the argument quite
as stronglyas it was presented. It is
more plausible than sound. It assumes
the very matter which is the question
in debate. it ignores the fact that
Congress has also powo•-• over those
who constitute the militia. The mili
tia of the Stags is also that of the gen
eral Government. It is the whole
able-bodied population capable of bear
ing arms, whether organized or not.—
Over it certain powers aro given to
Congress, and others are reserved to
the States. Besides the power of cal
ling it forth, for certain defined uses,
Congress may provide for its organiza
tion, arming and discipline, as well as
for_ geyeraing suet portion as may, be,
employed in service. It is the ma
terial and the only_ material canton.-
plated by the Constitution, out of
which the armies of the Federal Gov
ernment are to be raised. Whether
gathered by coercion or enlistment,
they aro equally taken out of those
who form a part of the militia of the
States:' Taking a given number,-by
draft no more conflicts with the re
served power of the States, than does
taking the same number of men in
pursuance of their own contract. No
citizen can deprive a State of her
rights without her consent. None
could, therefore, voluntarily enlist, if
taking a militia man into military ser
vice in the army of the United States
is in conflict with any State rights
over the Those rights, ,what
ever they may he, it is obvious minuet
be Waked by the mode of taking.—
It is clear that the States hold their
power over the militia, subordinate to
-the power of Congress to raise armies
out of tile population that constitutes
it. Were it not so, the delegation of
the power to Congress would have
been an empty gift. Armies can be
raised from no other source. Enlist
ments in other lands are generally
prohibited by foreign enlistment acts,
and even Where they are not, they
may, under the law of nations, involve
a breach. of neutrality. Justly, there
fore, may it bo said the objection now
under consideration begs the question
in debate.
It assumes a right in the State which
has no existence, to wit: .a right tol
hold all the population that constitute
militia men exempt from being taken,
in any way, into the armies of the
United States. When it is said, Willy
portionX the militia may be coerced
into such military service, the whole
may, it is but a repetition of the com
mon, but very weak argument against
the existence of any power in either
the State or General Government, It
applies as well to.a denial of power
to raise armies by voluntary enlist
ment. It is as concievablo that high
motives of patriotism, or inducements
held out by the Federal Government,
might draw into its military service
the entire able-bodied population of a
State, as that tho whole might be
drafted. We are not to deny the ex,
istenee of a power because it may pos
sibly be unwisely exercised, nor are
wo to presume "that abuses will take
place. Especially aro wo not at liber
ty to do so in this ease, in view of the
fact that the General Goverment is
under COnstitutional obligations td
provide for the common defence' of thif
country, and to guarantee to each
State a republican form of governnient:
That would be to impose a duty, and •
deny the power to perform it.
These aro all the objections, deserv
ing of notice, that have been urged
against the power of Congress to com
pel the complainants into military ser
vice in the army.- I know of no others
of any importance. They utterly fail
to slow that: there is anythin in ei
ther the letter or the spirit of the Con
stitution to restrict the power to "raise
armies," given generally, to any par
ticular mode of e.xereise. For_,therea
son given, then, I think tho previsions
of' the act of Congress, under which
these-complainants have been enrolled --
and drafted, must,be
,held to be such
as it is within'the,censtitutionalPoWer'
of Congress to'enact. ' It follows that"
nothing has becirdone;'or is,prop,esk•
to be done by the defentiants;that ittJ
contrary to law, or .prejudicial,t6" the
rights of the complainants.
An attempt was made on the Riga.
merit to maintain that those' provis
ion& of the act of Congress which allow
a drafted man to commute by the pay
ment of $3OO are in violation of the
Constitution. 'But this is outside of
the case before us. By these provis
ions the complainants are • not - injuri
ously affected, and the" bills .do not
complain of anything done, or propOs
ed to he done under them. It is the
compulsory service which the
tiffsJesist ; they'do not complain that is:a, mode' provided of ridding
them Solves of :If it be &Mooed
Congreis cannot - provide.TfOr?cornintz,
Lathan:of military service,by the—pay
ment oflt stipulated sum of money, or ,
cannot do it in the way adopted in this
enactment, the concession_in,no-man
net! 'affects the directitnis for
compulsion into serviee. -- "Let it bo"---
that the provision for commutation 'is,
unetithorized, those for enrolfiferitarit
draft are such as Congress had power
to enact; It well settled that part
of a statute-May fie- unconstitutional,
and the remainder in force. I - by - no
means,- however, mean to be :under
stood as conceding that any- part of
this act is unconstitutional. I think
it might easily ho shown that - every
part of it is a legitimate exercise of
the power vested in Congress, but I
decline to discuss the question, because
it is not raised in the cases befdre us.
Nor" while holding the opinions - ex
pressed, that no rights of the complai
nants are unlawfully invaded or threa
tened, is it necessary to consider the
power or propriety of interference by
this court, on motion to enjoin Federal
officers against the performance of n
duty imposed upon them in plain
terms by an 'act of Congress.. Upon
that subject I express no opinion. 1
have said' enough to Eilipw that the
complainants are not entitled to the
injunctions for which they ask, and I
think they should be denied.
APL are realizing now, in. the peace
and prosperity that prevail through:
out the loyal States, the immeasurable
importance of the victory we gained
at Gettysburg. Had Gen. Meade been
defeated, Pennsylvania would have
been overrun; Harrisburg, Philatlet
il..:o ;I:611144m iistbirs "van Li
all probably have been captured. The
chief Powers of Europe would then
have recognized the rebel confederacy
as an independenower, irnd we
would probably btre - soom been com
pelled to recognize it ourselves. But
the tido turned in our favor on the 3d
of July, and the Battle of Gettysburg
thus becemes ono of the most Memora
ble points in the history of the war.
It is to do honor to the heroes who
fell in the great conflict thus descri
bed, that the solemnity of next Thurs
day is ordered. Gov. Curtin and
many distinguished men from all parts
of the country will be present, and we
doubt not that the reremonies will be
-worthy-of-tbo-000aaion.
On Thursday next, 'November . l9th
there will be a grand and solemn dem
onstration of the peoPle of the United
States at the little town of Gettysburg
Pa. The victory won and the blood
shed there on the Ist, 2d and 3d days
of July, 1803, have made the ple ho
ly ground in the estimation of every
patriot. But there is to be, on Thurs
day, a formal dedication of a portion
of the battle-field as a National Ceme
tery, where the ashes of the heroes
who fell in the terrible conflict will
rest undisturbed till the day cf mar
: -
rection.
LAID DOWS THEIR ARMS.-A. dos
patch from the _army of the Potomac,
dated Nov. 18th, says
"A deserter from the 9t,h Alabama
regiment, in Ewell's corps, came into
our picket lines yesterday, who states
that the men in his regiment have laid
down their arms since the.- fight at
Rappahannock Station; and refused to ,
serve longer in tho rebel army. They
were ordered to be placed 'under guard,
but before the guard came, succeeded
in dispersing themselves through the
country, and are seeking opportunities
to come into the Unimilines. He re
presents that a very despondent feel.
mg exists in the rebel army of North
ern Virginia, and ' a 'general 'belief in
the ranks that their cause is becoming
more hopeless as time passes."
—A - letter was found in'one of .tho
rebel -Camps near the - Rappahannock,
written by a North Carolina soldier,.
in which the writer says that the
mountains of that State are full of de
serters from the rebel army. He men
tions that Captain was coming
up to the mountains with a military
force to arrest deserters, and emphati
cally remarks, "If he gets in ho wilt
have a good ime getting- out again
alive."
um. A secessionist journal at Toron.
to admits that a plot was,aoanged by
the secessionists of Canada to, rescue
the rebel prisoners atjohniion's Island;
Lake Erie. .Our Government was in.
formed of the facts in good time to
spoil the programme of the traitors.
mt,.Fine Cigars and Tobacco for
salt at Lewis' Book Store.