Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1863-02-11
competent au.hority, which eTempta him

competent authority, which exempts him
from military service, is fairly to be consid.
Eered as one Of that class who are excepted
from the operation Of the Act And il
Congress, by a new Act called into service
those who we're not liable nndsrthe former
Act, it could operate onlyon those who had
not yet undertaken to render military ser.
vice. IF one had been already enrolled
and mustered in for three years, unless the
war shall have sooner ended, is not to be
supposed that he would be discharged for
the purpose of being again enrolled aud
mustered in for the same term. There is
no doubt that one, although not embraced
in the terms Of the Act approved the 18th
of April, 1862, nevertheless could by vol.
untary engagement, impose upon himself
the same obligationsof military service as
if he were called out under that Act. IT
Eby Il subsequent Act hsbesame 'included IN
its provisions; both Acts contemplating the
same service, he would not be considered a.
mong those who we're called forth by that
subsequent Act. He had, by his own en-.
gagsment, consented. to be considered as
zone who had been legally called. He had
been accepted, and in that was recognized
as one who had been properly called. To
say. that he was subjectto call for military
service, while he wasin the actual. discharge
of that service Ito which he had dsbeen pre-.
sumptiyely already called, would seem TO
involve the question of actual and prospec-
tive liability I'M a great deal Of confusion.
The Act of the 9th September, 1862,
cannot be considered as sustaining the con-
lstruction, that substitute within the ages
whichit makes subject to. the, call Of mill
, tary service is, by its operation, prevented
from continuing to be, as he was when ac-
oepted, a legal substitute under;t tho Act Of
the 10th April, 1852. IF the Act Of Con-
gress then does not require that construc-
ttion which is set forth in General Orders
No. 64, dated 9th September, 1852, in
these words, ta substitute becoming liable
to conscription renders his principal also Ii.
able unless exempt on other grnundsj jn and
tifno special order Of the President has been
issued to the same effect, it only remains
to enquire whether, under the 9th section
of the Act approved 18th April, 1852,
the Secretary, Of War was authorized to
declare, by the General Grdera No, 81,
that for the causes there stated the liability
Of The principal for military should be re.
nesred.
THAT the power given to the Secretary Of
Warto make regulations for the admission
of substitutes, would sathorize him to modi-
fy these regulations according to his con.
vicEions Of expediency, will not be disputed.
But that such . power can be exercised
so us affect one who, having complied with
established regulations, has thereupon been
discharged, may well be doubted. Retros.
pective Legislation, having retro active op-
Grafton, isa recognized, but very high
power of Government. When exercised, it
is always upon the ground fsome manifsat
public policy. That Congress intended to
admit, in certain cases, the privilege ofsub.
stitution, is clear. That it could take a.
way that privilege by respective legisla-
ton, is equally clear. That its delegation
to the Secretary of War of the power to
make regulations concerning substitutes,
would authorize that officer, if hs had oonsid.
cred it necessary, to insertin the discharge,
the condition that if by subsequent legis-
lation, the case of the proposed substitute
was embraced, the substitution would be
avoided, and the disoharee imperative, is
| alag clear. But that Wishout the insertion
or expression Of any such condition, Con-
gress intended to confer the same high pow
er Of Legislation which it possessed, SO that
the Secretary of War could avoid ads.
charge, which he had granted upon biz aa.
ceptance of sgbqt;tnts, cannot be main
tanned.
The orders of the Secretary Of War,
moreover, have expressly declared the easea
in which the exemption eeasea. The ex-
preston Of these two, as the case must have
been from abundant caution, II not ex.
pressed, the same consequence would have
resulted upon the discovery of either. But
the expression of these is significant on the
fact that it was then considered, except in
such cases, the discharge, it fairly obtained,
was conclusive sofsr a. tie Secretary Of
War vas concerned.
Considering that the Act approved 9th
September, 1882 does not support the con.
struction in General Orders No. S4, con.
eerHing the liability ofprincipals who have
furnished substitutes ; and that no order Of
the President, as Commander in Chief has
been issued touching this matter; and that
the power given to the Secretary of War to
make regulations concerning substitutes,
does not authorize him, after he has gran
ted a discharge, in q aasa where neither
fraud nor mistake is alleged, to impose
new condition one who has been by bis or.
der discharged from military service and
by the enforcement of that condition impose
upon him the performance of that military
service from which the order of that officer
has exempted him; I am of opinion that the
detention of Leopold Cohn blythe enrolling
officer is illegal. 9hse order will therefore
&c entered for his discharge.
n@ We learn. saws the Richmond En-.