I """""" j! f ltt YY t. M BY S. J. ROW. CLEARFIELD, PA., WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 1863. VOL. 10.-ATO. 13. 45 UBskV TERMS OF THE JOURNAL. The K-iFTSfAs's Journal is published on Wed rej.iaT at Sl.oO per annum in advance. Al'VER riiticENTS inserted at SI. 00 per square, for three f r less insertions Twelve lines (or less) counting a jjuare. For every additional insertion 2i cents. , deduction will be made to yearly advertisers. PROFESSIONAL & BUSINESS CAEDS. 1KVIX BROTHERS, Dealers in Square & Pawed Lumber, Drj Woods, Groceries, Flour, tlrain, Ac . Ac, Burnside Pa.f Sept. 23, 1863.' TiKEBEKICK LEITZINGEIt. Manufacturer of l t il kinds of Stone-ware, Clearfield, Pa. Or ders solicited wholesale or retail. Jan. 1,1863 RAS-S t BARRETT, Attornevs at Law. Clear ly field. Ia. ".May 13. 1S63. i. j. crass. :::::: Walter Barrett. TjOBERT J. WALLACE. Attorney at Law. Clear field. Pa Office in Shaw's new row. Market wet. opposite Xaugle's jewelry store. May 26. TT F. XAUOLE, Watch and Clock Maker, and XI. dealer in Watches, Jewelry, tc. Koora in jraiiam s row, Mantel street. Nov. 10. HBUC1IER SWOOPE, Attorney at Law. Clear . ficjld, Pa. Offict in Graham's Row, four doo: s west of Graham & Boynton's store. .Nov. 10. TP. KUATZER Merchant, and dealer in . Boards and Shingles, Grain and Produee. Front St. above the Academy, Clearfield. Pa. Jjl2 "XT 7" ALL ACE & HALL, Attorneys at Law. fclear- field, Pa. December 1". 13o2. vii.liam a. Wallace. :::::::: JOHN o. hall. IT A FLEMMr.VO. Curwensville, Pa., Xursery 4 . man and Dealer in all kiudj of Fruit ami Ornamental Trees, Plants and .Shrubbery. All or ders by mail promptly attended to. May 13. AXTILLIAM F.IRWIX. Market-street. Clearfield, Pa., Dealer in Foreign and Domestic Mer chandise. Hardware. Queeusware, Groceries, and family articles generally. .Nov. 10. TI.UIN GTELICH. Manufacturer of all kinds of 1 Cabinet-ware, Market street. Clearfield, Pa. lie also makes to order Coffins, on short notice, and attends funerals with a hearse. AprlO.'iU. DR. M.WOODS. Practicing Piivsici w, and Examining Surgeon for Pensions. South-west corner of Second and Cherry J-trett. Clearfield, Pa. January 21. 1803. ? W. SII.WY. M !.. has resumed the prac- tk-e of Medicine and Surgery in Shawsville, Prima, where he etill respectluWy solicits a con tinuance of public patronage. May 27, 1:63. IB MEN' IXY, Attorney at Law. Clearfield, . Pa. Pr.T.-tices in Clearfield and adjoining counties.. Office in new brick building of J. Boya tou, 2J street, one door south of Lanich's Hotel. 1) ICIIARD MOSSOP, Dealer in Foreign and Do I. mestic Drv (iooils, Groceries. Flour, Bacon, Liquors. tc. Room, on Market street, a few doors west of Journal Ojficr. Clearfield, Pa. Apr27. miMMP.SOX, k WATSON. Dealers in Timber X. Saw Logs, Boards and Shingles. MarysvtUe, t iearfield countv, Penn'a August II, Jf3. s. v . Tnovrox JAS. E. WATSON". IARRI.MER TEs V, Attorneys at Law.Clear J field. Pa. Will attend promptly to all legal aud other business entrusted to their care in Clear field and adjoining counties. August ft. IS.'itj, JAS. It. LARRIMKI! ISRAEL TEST. DR. WM. CAMPBELL, offer.- his professional sorviees to the citizens of Mosjiannon and vi cinity. He can be consulted at his residenco at al! times, unless absent on professional business. MoshauDnri. Centre co., l'a.. May 13, 1S!S3. 1TM. A I.IJEKT A BRO S, Dealers in Dry Good, Groeeriei. Hardware. Qaeensware. Flour, l'-ncon. etc.. Woodland. Clearfield county, Penn'a. .Al.-o. extensive dealers in all kinds of sawed lum ber, hiuies. and souare timber, Orders soliei t"l. V oodland, Aug. liHh, iHu-i. rpil'MAS.r. M CULLOUGH, Attorney at Law. L Civarfie'd. Pa. Office, est of the "Clearfield 0". Lar.k. Deeds and other legal instruments pre I arcd with promptness and accuracy. Jnly 3. o iicsH. :::::::: T.j.MccLLOt:ttn BUSH k M'CUr.LOUGH S Cot.tr.CTW.v CffiCK. Clearfield. Pesn'a. C'lfkKIjU'AKD. The above reward will be ' 1" Pid lor information that will lead to Hp ;ie:,en-iun and Coin iction of the persons r pcr fn. who set tire to and burned -Iowa a portion of tlie feiiees on the premises of the subscriber, re si.liiu in Brady township, on Saturday niirht. So n,l),.r Hth. ANDREW PEMZ, Sr. iirady township Nov. li 1803. A CIlANtiE The electors of the several -i i. tt,v,inl,iju of this County will take notice that '4 Ac: of Assembly was passed last winter chang it: t i.he time of holding the Spring elections in 'several townships of this County from the third rn.Jay .f February to the last Friday of Deeeni 7' annually, ibeing Christmas day f.ir this year) titables and other township otfleerswill please 'iKc notice. The Commissioners of the county "ill be in session on the Tuesday following thq election tor the purpose of paying off the return jn t-n.,. Uy order of the Board. Ji.r. H. lsC3.-3t. W. S. BRADLEY, Clerk. fPHE EST.VTK OF FREDERICK FJSII A KK, DECEASED : if',"rirll Comity. s. .- In the matter of J the appraisement of the Real Estate of u Frederick Fisher. deceased, setting out tuihe widow ?:;o, her dlaim was on the 30th of yptember 18ti3 read and confirmed Xi Si and or lerel by the Court that publication be made in 'e newspaper published in said County notify "g !1 persop3 interested that unless exceptions til? c,n or before the 1st day of next term will w connnaed absolutely. By the Court oy. is. is63 I. G. BARGER, Clerk of O C. rPHE ESTATE OF JOHN BURGUN A DER, DECEASED: I SF iiCt''arf'et( County, s.t : In the matter of N7yNy aPPra'sen,enttf the Real Estate of ,5 John Burgunder,deceased, setting out f 'ae widow 5300, her claim was on the 30th of k ,i read aild c,jnfirmed Xi Si and ordered - Uie Court that publication be made in one MTspaper published in said County notifying all 'rv,ns interested that unless exceptions are filed a 0, beiure the first day of next term will becou- ""ued absolutly. By the Court. IS JS63. I. (J. BAR JER. Clerk of O. C. T'w J:'STATE of BENJAMIN Y1NU DECEASED: (sEALvt:'a''-' County, ts: In the matter of Xy-sJ appraisement of Real Estate of mi$.L ?eDjitmi, Yingling.deoeaged, setting df - wldow 300' her oUim was on the 2ith nd P,eiber 1S63 read and confirmed Xi Si ordered that publication be made in one inn. -er PQbli8hetl al County notifying all w ort 'ute,etl-''l bt unless exceptions are filed finJJ u the0wdy of next term will be con absolutely . By the Court. Is 1863. I. a. BARGER. Clerk of 0. C. BEAUTY. The loveliest eye is that of Faith, Which upward looks to God; The neatest foot is that which has The path of Virtue trod. The sweetest lips are those that ne'er A word of guile have spoken : The richest voice is that of Prayer. One ne'er a vow has broken. The prettiest hair is that which Time Has silverd oer with gray, Or cover o'er an honest head Its beauties no'er decay. The fairest hand is one that's oft In deeds of kindness given ; The purest heart is one that Christ Has sanctified for Heaven. THE CONSCRIPTION ACT. Abstract of the Decision of C- Justice Lowrie The Constitutionality of the Act Af firmed by Justice Strong. Kneeder vs. Lane, Barrett, WelN and Ash roan. Smith vs- Lane, Barrett, Wells and Young. Nickells vs. Lehman, Mardsis, Mur phy and ScatiUn. Id the Supretne Court of Pennsylvania, in equity, on motion for an injunction, Chief Justice Lowrie, (sustained by Justice Wood ward and Thompson) decided the Act of Con gress, styled the "Conscription Act," uncon stitutional. Preparatory to his argument the learned Judge admits that the Constitution Recognizes two sorts of military land f?r ces the militia and tho army ; sometimes called the regular, and sometimes the stand ing army, and delegates to Congress power ti raise and support armies' and 'to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union? suppress insurrections and repel invasions.'" He then asserts that the act in question depends for authority not up on the latter of tiiese grants, but "upon the power to raise armies" and 'the ancillary power" given to Congress "to pass 'all laws which shall be necessary and proper' for that purpose." And then lie argues First, That since Congress, in cases where the permanent forces of Government are in adequate to repel invasion or crush rebellion, has the power giveir it to cajl out the militia, it must adopt that method until it is manifest whether it is an inadequate one; and to exer cise the power to raise armies before the mi litia is tried would therefore be unconstitu tional. The militia, it is intimated, have not been properly tried, therefore the act of Con gress is unconstitutional. In this view of the subject the act would be unconstitutional only because the necessity lor it is not shown to be sufficient. Second, The Chief Justice, taking higher ground, aflirrus that in all other grants ol lorc ed contributions to the Government, us du ties, imposts, etc., some rule of uniformity or equality is fixed in the Constitution ; but in respect to this grant no such limitations are found in that .instrument. If any such meth od, as is contemplated by this act, ot raising armies had ieen intended by the Cramers "( the Constitution they would certainly have made some limitations to it ; but they did not do ihis, hence Ihe inlerence arises that they did not grant such a power.and the act conse quently is unconstitutional. Of course, if this deduction were correct, then the act would be unconstitutional on the broad ground that all such forced levied are unconstitu tional Third, The Judge, descending from this high position, then makes tli3 inquiry in the nar row form of "Whether the particular modo of coercion adopted in this act is Constitution al ?" He atfirti.s it to be incompatible with the provisions of the Constitution in regard to the militia, in that it constitutes them Na tional forces instead of militia, and violates State systems by reducing all their officers, and the ollicers of ll social institutions, to the" some ranli" that of a "common soldier." The danger of this be attempts to shor 'from history, quite t length. Fourth, He dwells upon the (alleged) con fusion which this act "provides for" between the army and the militia, in that by its pro visions the President can send anv drafted man ta any department of the service even into the navy. 1I then touches upon the fact, which he acknowledges, that General Washington alter the adoption of the Consti tution intimated his approval of a similar plan of recruiting the army to the one in question, and that Mr. Monroe recommended another(al so similar) in 1814, but still the Judge differs with them in opinion. He then closes with a declaration that no argument can be drawn, from tho opposition of the Hartford Conven tion to a similar act, in favor ot the present one, since their condemnation was founded on sectional considerations. The rest of the paper concerns tho juris diction of the Court, of which there appears to be much doubt. Thus, we have given briefly and impartially the principal, if not all tho arguments of the majority of the Court on this subject, and now refer the reader to the OPINION OF JUSTICE STB0NO. Strong J. The complainants having been enrolled aud drafted, under the provisions of the Act of Congress of March 3d, 1863, enti tled "An Act for enrolling and calling out the National forces and for other purposes," have presented their bills in this Court against the persons who constitute the Board of Enroll ment, and against the enrolling officers, pray ing that they may be injoined against pro ceeding under the Act of Congress, with the requisition, enrollment and draft of citizens of the Commonwealth, and of persons of for eign birth, who have declared their intention to'become citizens onder and in pursuance of the laws, to perform compulsory military duty in the service of tho United States, and par ticularly that the defendants may be enjoined from all proceedings against the persons of the complainants, under pretence of executing the wa id law of the United States. The bills having been filed, motions are now made for preliminary injunctions, until final bearing. These motions have been argued only on the part of the complainants. We 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 are not subject to Enrollment ami 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 fraudulently 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. Tho complainants rest wholly upon tho assertion that the act ot Congress is unconstitutional, and, therefore, void. It is denied that there is any power in the Federal Government to compel the milita ry service of a citizen by direct action upon him, and it is insisted that Congress can con stitutionally raise armies in no other way than by voluntary enlistments. The necessity of vesting in the Federal Gov ernment power to raise, support ana employ a military force was plain to the framers of the Constitution, as well as to tho people of the States by whom it was ratified. This is manifested by many provisions ot that instru ment, as well as by its general purpose, de clared to be for -'common defence." Indeed such a power is necessary to pseserve the ex istence of any independent government, and none has ever existed without it. It was, therefore, expressly ordained in the eighth article, that the Cougress of the United States Should Lave power to "provide for oalling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel in vasions." It was also ordained that they should have power to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the miiitia, and for governing such part of them as may be em ployed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the ap pointment of the officers and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress. Nor is this all. It is obvious that if the grant of power to have a military force had stopped here, it would not have answered all the purpoaes for which the Government was formed. It was inten ded to frame a government that should make a new member in tho family of nations. To this end, within a limited sphere, every at tribute of sovereignty was given. To it was delegated the absolute and unlimited power of making treaties with other nation?, a pow er explicitly denied to the States. This un restricted power of making treaties involved the possibility of offensive and defensive al liances. Under such treaties the new gov ernmeht might be required to send armies be yond the limits of its territorial jurisdiction. And, in fact, at the time when the constitu tion was formed, a treaty of alliance offensive and defensive was in existence between the old confederacy and the Government of France. Yet more. Apart from the obliga tions assumed by treaty, it was well known that there are many cases, where the rights of a nation, and its citizens, cannot be protected, or vindicated within its own boundaries. But the power conierred upon Congress over the militia is insufficient to enable tho fulfillment of the demands of sucli treaties, or to protect the rights of the government, or its citizens, in those cases in which protection roust be sought beyond the territorial limits of the country. The power'to call the militia into the service of the Federal Government is limi ted by express terms. It reaches only three cases. The call may be made "to execute the laws of the Union, to suppress insurrections, and to repel invasions," and for no other uses. The militia cannot be summoned for the invasion of a country without the limits of Ihe United States. They cannot be em ployed, therefore, to execute treaties of offen sive alliance, nor in any case where military power is needed abroad, to enforce rights necessarily sought in foreign lands. This must have been understood by tho framers ol the constitution, and it was for such reasons, doubtless, that other powers to raise and maintain a military force were conferred up on Congress, in addition to those which were given over tho militia. By constitution, it was ordained, iu words of the largest meaning, that Congress should have power to "raise and support armies," a power not to be con founded with that given over the militi.i of the country. Unlike that, it was unrestricted, unless it could be considered a restriction that appropriations of money to the use of raising and supporting armies were forbidden for a longer term than two years. In one sense this was a practical restriction. With out appropriations uo army can be maintained, and the limited period Cor which appropria tions can be made, enables the people to pass judgement upon the maintainanco and even the existence of the army every two years, and in every new Congress. But in tire clause conferring authority to raise armies, uo limi tation is imposed other than this indirect one, either upon the magnitude of the force which Congress is empowered to raise, or upon the uses tor which it may be employed, or upon the mode in which the army may be raised. II there be any restriction upon the mo1e of exercising the power, it must be found else where than in tho clause of the Constitution that conferred it. And, if a restricted mode ot exercise was intended, it Is remarkable that it was not expressed, when limitations were so carefully imposed upon the power given to call for the militia, and more especi ally, when, as it appears from the prohibition ot appropriations for the army tor a longer term than two years, the subject of limiting the power was directly before 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 insert re strictions upon powers given in unlimited terras, any more than we can strike out re strictions imposed. There is sometimes great confusion of ideas in the consideration ot questions arising un der the Constitution ot the United States, caused by misapprehension of a well-recognized and oft-repeated principle. It is said, and truly said, that the Federal Government is one of limited powers. It has no other than such as are expressly given to it, and Eucb as (in the language of the Constitution itself,) "are necessary and proper for carying into 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 pro hibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Of course there can be no presumption in favor of the existence of a power sought to be exer cised by Congress. It must be found in the Constitution. But this principle is misapplied when it is used, as Is sometimes the case, to restrict the right to exercise a power express ly givr n. It is of value when the inquiry is whether a power has been conferred, but of no avail to strip a power given in general terms, of any of its attributes. The powers of the Federal Government are limited in number, not in their nature. A power vested in Congress is as ample as it would be if pos sessed by any other Legislature.-none the less because held by the Federal Government. It is not enlarged or diminished by the character of its possessor. Congress has power to bor row money. Is it any less than the power of a State to borrow money ? Because the Fed eral Government has not all the powers which a State Government has, will it be contended that it cannot borrow money, or regulate com merce, or fix a standard of weights and measures, in the same way, by the same means, and to the same extent, as any State might have done, had no Federal Constitution ever been formed t If not, and surely this will not be contended, why is not the Federal power to raise armies as large, and as unfet tered in the mode in which it may be exer- cisea, as was tne power to raise armies pos sessed by Ihe States before 1787, and pos sessed by them now, in time of war? If they were not restricted to voluntary enlistments in piocuring a military force, upon what prin ciple can Congress be? In Gibbons vs. Og den, 9 Wheaton", 196, the Supreme Court of the United States laid down the principle that all the powers vested by the Constitution in Congress are complete in themselves, and may be exercised to their utmost extent, and that there are uo lim itat ions upon them, other than such as are prescribed in the Consti tution. It is not difficult to ascertain what must have been introduced by the founders of the government when they conferred upon Con gress the power to "raise armies." At the time when the Constitution was formed, and when it was submitted to the people for adop tion, the mode of raising armies by coercion, by enrollment, classification and draft, as well as by voluntary enlistment, was well known, practised in other countries, and familiar to the people of the different States. In 1756, but a short time before the revolutionary war, a British statute had enacted that all persons without employment might be seized and co erced into the military service ot the kingdom. The act may be found at length in Rutihead's British Statutes at large, vol. 7, page 625, Another act of a similar character was passed in 1757, British Statut"S at large, vol. 8, page 11. Both were enacted under the administra tion of William Pitt, afterwards Lord Chat ham, reputed to have bben one of the staunch est friends of English liberties. Thev were founded upon a principle always recognized in the Roman Empire, and asserted by all mod ern civilized governments, that every able bodied man capable of bearing arms, owes per sonal military service to the government which protects him. Lord Chatham's acts were harsh and unequal in their operations, much more so than the act of Congress now assailed. They reached only a select portion of the able-bodied men in the community, and they opened wide a door for favoritism and other abuses. For these reasons, they must have been" the more prominently before the eyes of the framers of tho federable constitu tion, when they were providing safeguards to libertv, and checks to aibitrary power. Yet in full view of such enactments they confer red upon Congress an unqualified power to raise armies. And, still more than thi, co ercion into military service hy classification and draft from the able-bodied men ot the country was to them a well known mode of raising armies in the different States which confederated to carry on the Revolutionary wr. It was equally well known to the peo ple who ordained and established the Constitu tion, expressly "in order to form a more per fect union, provide for the common defeuee, and secure the bessings of liberty for them selves and their posterity." It is an histori cal fact that during the later stages of the war, the armies of the country were raised not a lone by voluntary enlistment, .but also by co ercion, and that the liberties and indepen dence sought to le secured by the Constitu tion, were gained by soldiers made snch, not by their owu voluntary cboice, but by com pulsory draft. Chief Justice Marshall, him self a soldier of the Revolution, than whom no one was better acquainted with revolution ary history, in his lite of Washington (vol. 4 page 241) when describing the mode in which the armies of the Government were raised, makes tht) following statement: "In general the assemblies (of the States) followed the ex ample of Congress, and apportioned on tl.e several counties within the States the quota to be furnished by each. This division of the State was again to be eub-divided into classes, and each class was to furnish a man by contri butions or taxes imposed on itself. In some instances a draft was to be used in the last re sort." This mode of recruiting the army by draft, in revolutionary times, is also mention ed in Ramsey's Life of Washington, (vol, 2, page 246,) where it is said, "When voluntary enlistments fell short of the proposed num bers, the deficiencies were, by the laws of the several States, to be made up by drafts, or lots from the militia." Thus it is manifest that when the members of the Convention proposed to confer upon Congress the power to raise armies, in unqualified terms, and when the people of the United States a dopted the Constitution, they had in full view compulsory drafts from the population ot the country as a known and authorized mode ot raising them. The memory ot the Revolution was then recent. It was universally known that it had been found impossible to raise suf ficient arrries by voluntary enlistment, and that compulsory draft had been resorted to. If, then, iu construing the Constitution we are to seek for, and be guided by the intentions of its authors, there is no room for doubt. Had any limitation upon the mode of raising armies been intended, it must have been ex pressed. It could not have been left to be gathered from doubtful conjecture. It is in credible that when the power was given in word i of the largest signification, it was meant to restrict its exercise to a solitary mode that of voluntary enlistment, when it was known that enlistments had been tried and found ineffective, and that coercion bad been found necessary. The members of the Convention were citizens of the several States, eacb a sovereign, and each having power to raise a military force by draft, a power which more than one of them had exercised. By the Constitution, the authority to raise such a force was to be taken from the States partial ly, and delegated to the new government a bout to be formed. Xo State was to be allow ed to keep troops in time of peace. The whole power of raising and supporting armies, except in time of war, was to be conferred upr on Congress. Necessarily with it was given the means of carrying it into f ull effect. I agree that Congress is not at liberty to employ means for the execution ot auy powers delegated to it, that are prohibited by the spirit of the Constitution, or that are inconsis tent with the reserved rights ot the States, or the inalienable rights of a citizen. Th means used must be lawlul means. But I have not been shown, and I am unable to per ceive that compelling militaiy service in the armies of the United States, not by arbitra ry conscription, but as this act of Congress directs, by enrollment of all the able-bodied male citizens of the United States, and per sons of foreign birth who have declared their intention to become citizens, between the ages of twenty and forty-five, (with some few ex ceptions,) and by draft by lot from those en rolled, infringes upon any reserved rights of the States, or interferes with any constitu tional rights of a private citizen. If personal service may be compelled if it is common duty, this is cerainly the fairest and most e qual mode of distributing the public burden. It was uged in the argument that coercion of personal service in the armies is an invasion of the right of civil liberty. The argument was urged in strange forgetfulness ot what civil liberty is. In every free government the cit izen, or subject, surrenders a portion of his absolute rights in order that the remainder may be protected and preserved. There can be no government at all, where the subject re tains unrestrained liberty to apt as he pleases, and is under no obligation to the State. That is undoubtedly the best government, which imposes tho fewest retraints, while it secures ample protection to all under t. . But "no gov ernment has ever existed, none effn exist with out a right tothe personal military services of all its able-bodied men. The right to civil liberty in this country never included a right to exemption from such service. Before the Federal Constitution was formed, the citizens of the different States owed ir to the govern ment under which they lived, and it was exact ed. The militia systems of the States then as serted it, and they have continued to assert it ever since. They assert it now. No one doubts the power of a Stato to compel its mi litia into personal service, and no one has ever contended that such compulsion invades any right of civil liberty. On the contrary , it is conceded that the right to civil liberty is sub ject to such power in tho State governments, and the- history of the period immediately antecedent to the adoption of the Federal Constituion shows that it was then admitted. Is civil liberty now a different thing from what it was when the Constitution was formed It is better protected by the provisions of the Constitution, but are the obligations of a citizens to the government any less now than they were then ? This cannot be maintained. If the, coercion into military service was no invasion of tho rights ot civil liberty enjoyed by'the people of ihe States, before the Federal Constitution had any existence, it cannot be now. . Again, it is insisted that if the power given to Congress to raise and support armies be construed to warrant the compulsion of citi zens into military service, it must with'equal reason he held to authorize arbitrary seizures of property for the support ot the annv. The force of the objection is not apparent. Con fessedly the army must be raised by legal means. By such means it must also he-supported. It has already been shown that en rollment and draft are not illegal ; that to make them illegal a prohibition must be found iu 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 whch provision shall be made for the support of the army, but in numerous provisions, it protects the people against deprivation of property without com pensation aud due course of law. Exemption from such seizures was always an isseited and generally an admitted right, while exemption trom liability to being compelled to the per formance of military service was, as has been seen, never claimed. There are, therefore, limitations upon tho means which may be used lor the support ol the army, while none are imposed upon the means of raising it. Agaiu, it is said this act of Congress is a violation of the Constitution, because it makes a dratted man punishable as a deserter before be is mustered into the service. The contrary was declared by Chief Justice Marshall, when delivering the judgment ot the Supreme Court of the United States in Houston vs. Moore, o Wheaton. Under the act ot 1795, the dratted men were not declared to be subject to mili tary law until mustered into service. This is the act of which Judge Story speaks in his commentaries. But in the opinion of Judge Marshall, Congress might have declared them In service from the time of the draft, precise ly what this act of Congress does. Judge Marshall's opinion, of course, explodes this objection. The argument most presspd, in support of the alleged unconstitutionality ot the act of Congress is that it interferes with the reserved rights of the States over their own malitia. It is said the draft takes a portion of those who owe malitia service to the States, and thus diminishes the power of the States to protect themselves. The States, it is claimed, retain the principal power over the malitia, and there fore the power given to Congress to raise ar mies must be 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 portfen of the State malitia, they may take the whole, and thus the entire power of the States over them may be annulled, for want of any subject upon which it can act. I have stated the ar gument quite as strongly as it was presented. It is more plausible than sound. It assumes the very matter which is the question in de bate. It ignores the fact that Congress has also power over those who constitute tho ma litia. The malitia of the States is also that of the general government. It is the whole able bodied population capable of bearing arms, whether organized or not. Over it certain powers are given to Congress, and others are reserved to the States, Besides the power ot calling k forth, for cettain defined uses, Con gress may provide for its organization, arm ing and discipline, as well as tor governing such portion as may be employed in its ser vice. It is the material and the only ma terial contemplated by the Constitution, out of which the armies of the Federal Govern ment are to be raised. Whether gathered by coercion, or enlistment, they are equally ta ken out ot those who foiin a part of the mi litia of the States. Taking a given number by draft no more conflicts with the reserved power of the States, than does taking the same number cf men in pursuance of their own con tract. No citizen can deprive a State ot her rights without her consent. Nne could, therefore, voluntarily enlist, if taking a mili tia man into military service in the army of the United States is in conflict with any SUte rights over the militia. Those rights, what ever Ihey may be, it is obvious caunot be af fected by the mode of taking. It is clear that .the States hold tUeir power over their militia, subordin.ite to the power of Congress to raise armies out of the populatiou that Constitutes it. Were it not so, the delegation ot the pow er to Ccngress would have been an empty gift. Armies can be raised from no other source. Enlistments in other lands are gen erally prohibited by foreign enlistment acts, and even where they are not, they may, under the law of nations, involve a breach or neutral ity. Justly, therefore, may it be said the ob jection now under consideration begs the ques tion in debate. It assumes a right in tho State which has no existeuce, to wit : A right to hold all the population that constitutes ita militia men exempt from beinp taken, in any way, iuto the armies ot the United States. When it is said, if any portion of the miiitia may be coerced into such military service, the whole may, it is but a repetition of the common, but very weak argument against the existence of a power because it may possibly be abused. It might, With equal force, be ur ged against the existence of any power in ei ther the State or general government. It ap plies as well to a denial of power to raise ar mies by voluntary enlistment. It is as con ceivable that high motives of patriotism, or inducements held out by the Federal Govern ment might draw into its military service the entire able-bodied populations cf a State, as that the whole might be drafted. We are not to deny the existence of a power because it may possibly be unwisely exercised, nor are) we to presume that abuses will take place. Especially are we not at liberty to do so in this case, in view of the fact that the general government is under Constitutional obligations to provide lor the common defence of the country, and to guarantee to eacb State a re-w publican form of government. That would be to impose a duty, and deny the power to per- lorm it. These areal! the objections.deservlng of no tice, that have been used against the power of Congress to compel tbe complainants Jnto military service iu tbe army. I know of no others of any .importance. They utterly fail to show that there is anything in either the letter or the spirit ot the constitution to re strict the power to "raise armies," given gen erally, to any particular mode of exercise. For tho reasons given, then, 1 think the pro visions of the act of Congress, under which these complainant have been enrolled and drafted, must be held to be such as it is with in the constitutional power of Congress to en act. It follows that nothing has been done or is proposed to be done by the defendants that is contrary to law, or prejudicial to tbe rights of the complainants. An attempt was made on the argument to maintain that those provisions ot the act of Congress which allow a drafted man to onm, mute by the payment of 300 are in violation of the Constitution. By these provisions the complainants are not injuriously affected, and the bil's do not comjtbiin of anything done, or proposed to be done under them. It is the compulsory scrvico which the plaintiffs resist ; they do not complain that there is a mode pro vided of ridding themselves of It. If it be conceded Congress canuot providefor commu tation of military service, by the payment of a stipulated sum of money, or cannot do it m the way adopted In this enactment, the con cession in no manner affects tbe directions given lor compulsion into service. Let it be that the provision for commutation is unauthor ized, those for enrollment and draft are such as Congress hatf power to enact. It is well settled that part of a statute may be unconsti tutional, and the remainder in force. 1 by no means, however, mean to be understood as conceding that any part of this act is uncon stitutional. I think it might easily be shown that every part of it is a legitimate exercise ot the power vested in Congress, tjut 1 decline to discuss the question, because it is not rais ed by the cases before us. Nor while holding the opinions expressed, ' that no rights of the complainant are unlaw fully invaded or threatened, is it necessary to. consider the power or propriety of interfer ence by this court, on motion to enjoin Fede ral officers against the performance of a duty imposed upon them in plain terms by an act of Congress. Upon that subject I express no opinion. I have said enough to show that the complainants are not entitled to the injunc tions for which they ask, and I think they should be denied. Riles tor Letters Going Socth. First. No letter must exceed one page of a letter sheet, or relate to other than purely domestic matters. 2. Every letter must be signed by the writer's name in full. 3. All letters must be sent with five cents postage enclosed, if to go to Richmond, and ten ce.nts if beyond. 4. All letters must be enclosed to tbe command ing General of the Department of Virginia, and North Carolina, at Fortress Monroe, marked on the outside "f or flag of truce." No letter sent to nny other address will be forwarded. The Cecil Democrat says that several farm ers in Queen Anne county, Maryland, having lost their slaves, have sent to Germany for a ship load of emigrants. The number of free negroes in the neighborhood is too small to make good the loss in slaves. Jumbles. One pound flour, half lb. butter, three-quarters pound ot sugar, five eggs j any spice you like. The Richmond Enquirer mildly suggests that Vallandigbam's true place is in tbe sooth? ern armv. Row we printers lie; as our devil ssid wbso he got np too late for breakfast. 'i t - i m - e- in I! I I5U- II ft fir.-' KM tUi-x- " 1 1 1 1 i i ' A i.. ir
Significant historical Pennsylvania newspapers