The Alleghanian. [volume] (Ebensburg, Pa.) 1859-1865, 1863-11-26

I SatnereQ from doubtful conjecture lc is
Incredible that when the power was given
in words of the largest Specification, it was
meant to restrict its exercise to solitary
mode-that of voluntary enlistment, when
| it was known that enlistments had been
tried and found Ineffective, and that coer-
| cion had been necessary. The members
of the Convention were citizens of the
several States, each sovereign, and each
having power to raise military force by
draft, power which more than one of
them had exercised. By the Constitution,
the authority to raise such force was to
be taken from the States partially, ami
| 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
conferred upon Congress. Necessarily,
with it was given the means of carrying it
into full effect.
| l agree that Congress is not at liberty
to employ means for the execution of any
powers delegated TO it that are prohibited
by the spirit of the Constitution, or that
are inconsistent with the reserved rights Of
the States, or the inalienable rights of
citizen. The means used must be lawful
means. But have not beeu shown, and
am unable to perceive, that compelling
! military service In the armies of the
United States, not by arbitrary conscrip-
ton, but, as this act Of Congress directs,
enrolment of all the able bodied male
citizens of the United States, and persons
of foreign birth who have declared their
intention tc become citizens, between the
ages of twenty and forty five, with some
few exceptions,) ard by draft by lot from
those enrolled, iLfringes upon any reserved
any constitutional right of 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 burdens.
1t was urged 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 for
getfulness of what civil liberty is. In
every tree government the citizen or SUBJ
! ject surrenders portion of his absolute
rights in order that the re .nainder may be
protected aud preserved. There can be
no government at all where the subject
retains unrestrained 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 protec-
ton to all under it. But no government
has ever existed. none can exist, without a
right to the persona. military service OF
all it's able bodied men. The right to
civil liberty in this country never included
light to exemption from such service.
Before the Federal Constitution was form
| ed, the citizens of the different States
owed it to the governments under which
they lived, and it was exacted. The mi
litia systems of the States then asserted it,
and they have continued to assert it ever
since. They assert it now. No one
doubts the power of State to compel its
militia 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 subject to such power in
the State governments, and the history OF
the period immediately antecedent to the
| adoption of the Federal Constitution shows
that it Was then admitted. Is civil liberty
uOW d uilIeicut IHAuo iIoui -"udl IL was
when the Constitution was formed Is ii
better protected by the provisions Of the
Constitution, but are the obligations of a
citizen to the Government any less now
than they we're then This cannot be
maintained. If, then, coercion into mill
tary service was no invasion of the rights
of civil liberty enjoyed by the people OF
the 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 com
pulsion of citizens into military service, il
must with equal reason be held to author
ize arbitrary seizures of property for the
support of the army. The force of the
objection is not apparent. Confessedly
the army must be raised by legal means
By such means it must also be supported
It has already been shown that enrolment
and draft are not illegal; that to make
them illegal prohibition must be found
in the letter OF in the spirit of the Con
stltution. 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
provisions shall be made for the suppor
of the army, but in numerous provisions
it protects the people against deprivation
of property without compensation and du'
J course Of law. Exemption from suct