Raftsman's journal. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1854-1948, 1863-11-25


Constitution. But this principle is misapplied
when 1t is used, as is sometimes the case, to
| restrict The right to exercise a power express
| ly given. 1t is of value when the inquiry is
whether power has been conferred, but of
no avail to strip power given in general
| terms, of any of its attributes. The powers
or the Federal Government 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. 1t
| IS not enlarged or diminished by the character
OF It's possessor. Congress has power to bor
row money. is 1t any less than the power of
State TO borrow money? Because the Fed
erai Government has not all the powers which
| State Government has, will it be contended
that 1T cannot borrow money, or regulate COM
merce, or fix standard of weights and
measures, in the same way, by the
means, and to the same extent, any State
| might have done. had no Federal Constitution
ever been formed? If not, and surely this
! Will not be contended, why is not the Federal
| power to raise armies large, and as unfet-
| tered in the mode in which it may be exer-
! cised, as was the power to raise armies pos
sessed by fhe States before 1887, and pos
| Sessed by them now, in time of war ? If they
| were not restricted to voluntary enlistments
| IN procuring military force, upon what prin-
ciple can Congress be p In Gibbons VS.. Og
den, Wheaton, 1876, the Supreme Court of
I
chat all the powers vested by the Constitution
! in Congress complete in themselves, and
may be exercised TO their utmost extent, and
that there no lin itations upon them, other
than such prescribed in the Consti
! tuition.
1t 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 'sraise 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 coegcion,
! by enrolment, classification and draft, as we'll
as by voluntary enlistment, was well known,
| practised in other countries. and familiar to
| the people of the different States In 1856,
| but short time before the revolutionary war,
a British statute had enacted that all persons
| without employment might be seized and CO.
creed into the military service OF the Kingdom.
| The act may be found at length in Rutfhead' s
British Statutes at large, vol. Z, page 625,
Another act of similar character was passed
in 1857, British Statutes at large, vol. 8, page
| IL. Both were enacted under the adminst ra-
ton of William Pitt, afterwards Lord Chat
ham, reputed to have been one of the staunch-
est friends of English liberties. They were
founded upon 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- |
sOnai military service to the government |
which protects him. Lord Chatham's acts |
were harsh and unequal in their operations, !
much more than the act of Congress now |
assailed. They reached only select portion |
of the able bodied men in the community, and |
they opened wide door for favoritism and
other abuses. For these reasons, they must |
have been the more prominently before the |
eyes OF the trainers of the federable constitu |
tion, when they were providing safeguards to
liberty, and checks to al btrary power. Yet
in full view of such enactments they confer |
red upon Congress an unqualified power to
raise armies. And, still more than this, CO. |
eTcion into military service by classification |
and draft from the able bodied men of the |
country was to them a we'll known mode of
raising armies in the different States which |
cOnfederated to carry on the Revolutionary |
war. 1t was equally we'll known to the peO- |
pie who ordained and established the Constitu- |
tion, expressly ssin order to form more per- |
feet union, provide for the common defence, |
and secure the blessings of liberty for them |
selves and their posterity.'' 1t is 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 ndepen-
dence sought to be secured by the Constitn |
ton, were gained by soldiers made such, not
by their own voluntary choice, bnt by COM |
pulsory draft. Chief Justice Marshall, HIM |
self soldier of the Revolution. than whom |
no one was better acquainted with revolution |
ary history, in his life of Washington (vol. 4, /
page 24l) when describing the mode in which |
the armies of The Government were raised, |
makes the following statement: s.In general |
the assemblies (of the States) followed the ex-
ample of Congress. and apportioned on tie |
several counties within the States the quota
to be furnished by each. This division OF the |
State was again to be sub-divded into classes,
and each class was to furnish man by contri-
buttons or taxes imposed on itself. In some
instances 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 Lie OF Washington, (vol, 2,
page 246,) where it is said, ssWhen voluntary
enIistments 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 1t 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 OF the
country as known and authorized mode of
raising them. The memory OF the Revolution
was then recent. 1t was universally known
that it had been found impossible TO raise suf
ficient armies by voluntary enlistment, and
that compulsory draft had been resorted to. If,
then, in constituting the Constitution we are
to seek for, and be guided by the intentions
of its authors, there is 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. 1t is in
credible 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 1t
was known that enlistments had been tried
and found Ineffective, and that coercion had
z1FS t,xai