Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1863-04-24
April 81, 1868.
From the Salem Press.


The facts are, John N. Irwin being liable as con-
script under the act of April 1862. offered in July
CO, one Gedhart as his Substitute. Gedhart was
sc years of age and in all respects fit and sufficient
substitute Tor the war, and was accepted by Major
Mallett, cOmmandant of conscripts, who thereupon
gave Irwin an absolute discharge.
The petitioner ayers, he is advised that the con-
scription acts unconstitutional but it is not
necessary for the purpose Of this to deciec the
question.
. 1t is admitted that under the regulation of the
war department. Maj. Mallett had full authority to
accept substitutes and give discharges, but it is in
sisted that Twins discharge afterwards by the
action of Congress rendered of effect for the act
of October, 1852, makes all persons between the
ages OF 30 and 45 liable conscripts. So Gedhart
became liable, a conscript by reason whereof he
was no longer sufficient substitute, and thus IT.
wins discharge had no farther effect. If one, who
is at the time liable as conscrpt should be offered
and accepted substitute, it may be conceded
the discharge obtained in that way would be void,
because no consideration is received by the govern
ment, and the officer exceeds his authority. So if
after the CONSUMPTION act of April, who is IN
der l8 years of age is offered and accepted a sub
stitute it may he conceded that the discharge will
only be of effect until the substitute arrives at the
age Of Is; for as it known ta the parties that
the substitute himself would become liable at that
DATE under law then in force it will be presumed
that the contract and discharge made in refer
ence to that State OF things; and after the substi
tute arrives at the age of Is the consideration fails
and the officer had no authority to grant discharge
for longer time
But in our case there was at the time no law in
force under which it was known 10 the parties that
the substitute would afterwards be himself liable as
a conscript, on the contrary, he in all respects
fit and sufficient substitute for the war; and was
accepted as such, and an absolute discharge given
SO there was full consideration received by the gov
eminent and full authority the part of the officer
The question is, does the subsequent action of Con-
gress, to wit, the act of Oct 1862, by its proper
construction and legal effect, repudiate and make
void the contract and dischargep
The construction of acts of Congress- so far as
the rights of the citizens, distinguished from mill
tary regulations, concerned is matter for the
Courts
Whether Congress has power to pass an act en-
pressly making liable to. CONSUMPTION, persons who
have heretofore furnished substitutes and received
an absolute discharge, is a question not now pre-
sented and which trust public necessity never
will cause to be presented as it would violate nat
ural justice and shock the moral sense
In my opinion, the act of Oct 49, by its proper
construction, does not embrace men who we're be-
fore bound as substitutes, to serve during the war;
1t is true, the act in general words gives the Presi
dent power to call into military service all white
men residents &c, between the ages of 35 and As.
but this manifestly does not include men who are
already in military service for the war; for this plain