Litchfield enquirer., 1863-07-30

law, and -denounce it because of the amouSt. Why Is this? Does it not show that the oppo. sitionto the law, is not the legitimate product cf the law? Does it not rather spring from minds warped by political considerations. who. laying aside the National necessity. seek to build up party upon it's ruins More than this. Opposition to the law, tho claims of hardship and inequality do not come exclu-
 sively from those liable to draft, but it comes from thoso who are in nc way interested, sx. eept in our National preservation. They fan the feeling of opposition, forgetful of their duty to the government which protects them. forgetful that if the government falls they tho must go down in the general crash. Wou,s that all men would lay aside political eonsido. rations, see but in this call of the goyernmen. a call to individual patriotic duty, and bring to the accomplishment of it's purpose that heartfelt cooperation which the government has right to demand, and the citizen is bound to bestow.
 LOOK at another fact Look at the volunte,R iorce. Many are now in the seryico. who if at homo would be liable to draft. and wbs.;s
 the condition of those they left behind, w.. It hardship pecnnarily This communits presents no few examples to show that the ser vice of the government has slleyiated tbo wants and the condition of the yolun,esr. in. stead of having been hardship. We ssa these examples daily. They are not concealed, nor are they few. Can the result be less ben- efcial in the case of the drafted man than in that of the volunteer?
 A word in regard to the men who pay the $500. think it will appear, upon examina-- tion, that if there is any inequality in the law it is here. As have before said ,the man who goes, goes for three years or the war. Like
 wise the man who furnishes a substitute, that substitute is for three years or the war, and the man furnishing him discharges himself from liability to draft for the same period, to wit, three years or the war. There is reason to believe this is not so with the man who pays his $500, though it be for the procuration of substitute. By the 18th section $500 exempts him from ons single draft, It's phraseology is ''shall be discharged from further liability under that drdtt," evidently meaning one draft The l7th section says nothing about this class. It does not say that they shall be exempted from liability to draft, though substitute be procured with the $500 paid, but it would seem as though thoy were to belisbls to every succeeding draft, or until they go, or procure a substitute There must have been somo de- sign in excluding the $500 men from the ope- ration of the 17th section, as well as design in tho use of the language in the sth section, exemp pting them from further liability for that ono draft The l7th section is confined exclu- sivey to those who furnish substitutes, ex- empting them from liability for the time for ,rhieh tAey were drafted, t0 wit, three years or the war, so that the real inequality in the law touches those who pay the $500, instead of those who go, or those who furnish substitutes. It will be seen that the language of the 18th section.i is very explicit. It cannot be mista- ken. The payment of $500 only exempts man for one draft. This is as I read the law. Excuse these nasty thoughts. My only object being to aid in coming to correct conclusions of this law. T- W