M'arthur Democrat. (McArthur, Vinton County, Ohio) 1853-1865, 1863-12-03


levles Of the militia under their own
State officers, bat not for the regular
army.
But il is not important that Con.
gress may have assigned an inSufic.
lent reason for the law. II it may
pass such a law for any reason, we
mast sustain il for that reason. Tho
question, then, iS--may Congress, IN,
dependent OF the fact OF rebellion,
make fosced levies ia order to recruit
the regular armya
If it NAV, 1t may do 90 even when
no war exists or threatens, aud make
this the regular mode OF recruiting /;
it may disregard all consideration, OF
age. occupation, profession and official
station i! may take our Governors,
legislators. heads Of STATE Depart.
ments. judges, sherltfs. and all info.
rior officers, aid all the clergy and
public teachers, and leave tho State
entirely disorganized il may admin
no binding rule oil eqdaltity or pro,
portion for the protection Of individ.
uals, States and section. In oil other
matters of allowed contribution to the
Union, duties, imposts, excsss and
direct taxes, and organizing and
raining the militia, the rule of uni.
tormity, equality or proportion is
fixed in the Constitution. II could
not be so in calling out tie militia,
because the emergency vf rebellion OF
invasion does not always allow OF
this.
But for tie recruiting Of the army
no such reason exists, and yet, con.
trary to the rule OF other casea, lit
may be recruited by force, We fad no
regulations or limitation Of the exer.
else Of power, 40 as to prevent it from
being arbitrary and partial aud hence
VIC infer that such mode OF raising
armies was not granteds Ifany such
mode had been the intention of the
fathers Ct the Constitution, they would
etainy have subjected it to some
rule ot equality or proportion, and to
some restriction in favor of State
rights, as they have done in other
cases Of compulsory contributions TO
Federal necessities. We are forbid.
den by the I Constitution from inferrlDg
tho grant Of this poSor from its not
oeing enumerated as reserved; and
The rule that what is not granted ia
reserved operates in the same way,
and is equivalent to the largest bill
OF rights.
NJ doubt it would be unreasonable
to suppose that Congress would so
disgrace natural rights as t. take
such an advantage OF this want OF re.
gulation Of their power, as that above
Indicated; but the fathers Of tliu Con
sttution did presume that some such
ibings are possiJLs, and, therefore,
they would have regulated the mode,
il such mode had been intended.-
1t needed no regulations, il all recruits
were 10 DO obtained IN The ordinary
way. hy involuntary enlisnents.
Our jealousy OF tho usurpations Of
dominant parties is quite natural and
has been inherited through many
generations OF experience of cayiler
and rOundhead, court and country
whig and tory, pa.ties, each using
unconstitutional means of inforceiny =
the measures which they deemed es
sential Or Important for the public
welfare, or Of securing their own pow
er; and the fathers the Constitution
had experienced such usurpatlOns
from the very beginlng Of The reign ol
George Ill, and were not al all in.
cllnsd to grant powers which, for
want Of regulation, might possibly
become merely arbitrary. They had
no experience OF forced levirs for the
regular army, except by the States
themselves, and j; seems to Inc that
they did not intend to grant such a
power to the Federal Government.
Besides this, the Constitution does
authoriz1 forced levios OF the militia
tvrce oi the States in its organic ID
form, in case 0f rebellion and iuva
sion, and, un tho principle that a
remedy expressly provided Tor a Civ.
en Case excludes aIl implied ones, il
is fair to infer that it does not author
iz, forced levies in any other case o.
mode. the mode Of increasing the
military force iul the Suppression OF
rebellion being given in the Consti
tutipn every other mode would seem
to be excluded.
But even ii il be admitted that the
regular army may be recruited by
forced leyies, it does not seem to me
that the corsritutionality Of this act ia
decided. The question would then
take the narrower form. Is this mode
Of coercion constitutional I
ltseems to mo essentially incom
patIble with tho provisions Of the
Constitution ,elative TO tho militia
thai it cannot DO. On this subject,
- on all others. all powers not dele.