Raftsman's journal. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1854-1948, 1863-11-25
THE CONSCRIPTION ACT.
Abstract of the Decision of C. Justice Lowrie
The Constitutionaity of the Act AT
frmed by Justice STRONG.


Kneeder VS.. Lane, Barrett, Wells and Ash.
man. Smith vs. Lane, Barrett, Wells and
Young. Nickells VS.. Lehman, Mardsis, Muir.
ply and Scanlan.
| In the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, in
/ equity, on motion for an Injunction, Chic
Justice Lowrie, Sustained by Justice Wood
ward and Thompson) decided the Act of Con
gress, styled the ssConscription Act" uncon-
stitutioDal.
Preparatory TO his argument the learned
Judge admits that the Constitution
s.RecOguizes two sorts of military land for
ces-the militia and the army sometimes
called the regular, and sometimes the stand
ing army, and delegates to Congress power
st" raise and support armies and 'to provide
for calling forth the militia to execute the
laws of the Union; suppress instructions and
repei invaSiODS.' - He then asserts that the
act in question depends for authority not up
on the latter OF these grants, but "upon the
power to raise armies and stthe ancilaTy
power" given to Congress s.to pass 'all laws
which shall be necessary and proper for that
purpose" And then ne argues
First, That since Congress, in cases where
the permanent forces of Government are in
adequate to repel invasion or crush rebe lion,
q,
1t must adopt that method until it is manifest
whether it is an inadequate one; and to exer-
else the power to raise armies before the mi
litia is tried would therefore be unconstitu-
tional. The militia, it is intimated, have not
been properly tried, therefore the act of Con-
gress is unconstitutional. Tin this view of
the subject the act would be unconstitutional
only because the necessity for it is not shown
to he sutfcent.l
Second, The Chief Justice, taking higher
ground, affirms that in all other grants OF fore
ed contributions to the Government, as du.
ties, imposts, etc, some rule of uniformity or
equality is fixed in the Constitution but in
respect to this grant no such limitations are
found in that instrument. IF any such meth
cd, as is contemplated by this act, OF raising
armies had been intended by the trainers of
the Constitution they would certainly have
made some limitations to it but they did not
do this, hence the inference arises that they
did not grant such power, and the act conse-
quenty IS unconstitutional. OF course, if
this deduction were correct, then the act
would be unconstitutional on the broad ground
that all such forced levies are unconslitu-
tiUnal
Third, The Judge, descending from this high
position, then makes the inquiry in the
row form of Nv neither the particular mode of
coercion adopted in this act is Constitution
the provisions of the Constitution in regard TO
the militia, in that it constitutes them Ma
tional forces instead of militia, and violates
State systems by reducing all their officers,
and the officers of all social institutions, to the
s.same rank''-that of common soldier"
The danger of this be attempts to show from
history, quite It length.
Fourth, He dwells upon the (aleged) con-
fusion which this act ''provides for' between
. st,.a h.
visions the President can send anT drafted
man to any department of the service-even
into the navy He then touches upon the
fact, which he acknowledges, that General
Washington after the adoption of the Consti-
tuition Intimated his approval of a similar plan
of recruiting the army to the one in question,
and that Mr.. NJ onroe recommended anOther(al-
so similar) in 1914, but still the Judge differs
with them in opinion. He then closes with a
declaration that no argument be drawn,
from the opposition or the Hartford Conven-
tion to similar act, in favor OF the present
one, since their condemnation was founded
on sectional considerations.
The rest OF the paper concerns tho juris-
diction of the Court, of which there appears
to be much doubt.
Thus, We have given briefly and impartially
the principal, if not all the arguments of the
majority of the Court on this subject, and
now refer the reader to the
OPINION OF JUSTICE STRONG
STRONG 1.-The complainants having been
enrolled and drafted, und er the provisions of
the Act of Congress of March Sd, 1868, enti-
tied s.An Act for enrolling and calling out the
National forces and for other purposes have
presented their bills in this Court against the
persons who constitute the Board OF Enroll
ment. and against the enrolling officers, pray
ing that they may be injoined against pro-