The Bedford gazette. [volume] (Bedford, Pa.) 1805-current, 1863-11-27

VS.. Three bills in equity.
DAVID NJ. LANE, ct al. And on motion in
FRAN. B. SMrIIrs same each case for special
w. f. NIcKEIsrs same injunction.
Opinion of Justice Thompson.
The act of Congress under which the COM
plainant in this case is required to enter the ar
my of the United States as a soldier, for a pc
liod of three years or during the war, provides
for the enrolment, by officers of the United
States, of all persons liable TO do military duty,
between the ages of 20 and As years. and clas-
SITES them. The names of all persons thus en-
rolled, were required to be put into wheel.
and the requisite number for the districts, with
81 surplus of so per cent. for contingencies were
to be drawn thence, under the supervision of
certain federal officers Those thus drawn from
the wheel, if not exempted from disability or
otherwise, will be compelled to serve for the Pc
rod mentioned, or find acceptable substitutes,
or commute the service by the payment of $780,
Beyond all controversy this is draft, or in
voluntary conscription from the militia of the
State, without any requisition upon Stale Ex-
ecutives, or upon officers in command of the
militia in the State, and without any reference
to State authorities whatever. Is this enact
ment in accordance with the federal constitutions
The answer to this question determines the case,
for it is not denied that the complainant is with
in the provisions of the act, and was drawn as
and for I; soldier undsrits provisions He must,
therefore, serve, if the act be constitutional, or
seek exemption under some of its provisions.
Our Jurisdiction of the case, I think is plain.
We have authority to restrain acts contrary to
law, and prejudicial to the rights Of individu-
ais, act Of 10th June, 1886. If the act of
Congress of Sd March, 1868, under and by vir-
tue Of which the complainant is holden as SOL
dier, and sought to be coerced into the service
he not constitutional, the custody of his person
under pretence of it, is contrary to law, and
prejudicial TO his interests. The injury too, il
the proceedings be illegal, is undoubtedly with
in what is denominated irreparable injury or
mischief, and hence the propriety of The specific
remedy. An action for damages would perhaps
not be sustainable under recent act of Con-
gress, but if it should be, it would be against
parties who intended no injury, and from whom
on account of obeying what they supposed to
be law, in conducting the proceedings against
him, but little could be recovered, although the
from his home, and may have undergone great
hardships and vicissitudes. dismiss this branch
of the case, with this short view of it, and with
the additional remark, that if our Judgment is
against the constitutonality of the law, the case
can be removed to the federal judiciary at Wash
ington, if the authorities there see proper, and
be reviewed by the Court in the last resort in
such cases; thing which the President OF the
United States has, on recent occasion, express
cd a wish for, and determination to facilitate.
l now proceed to the main question. The
constitution of the United States defines and C.
numerates the powers of the General Govern
ment, and limits them by the solemn declaration
that ''the powers not delegated TO the United
States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it
to the States, are reserved to the States respec-
lively, or to the people"
The Government established by the Constltu-
tion, is, therefore, a limited Government, be-
yond the limitations of which, including neces-
sary incidents Of expressly granted powers, all
exercise of authority by Congress is mere usur-
patton. We should remember this in constru-
ing the Constitution, and we should remember,
also, that the entire machinery of Government,
provided by it, was poised between checks and
balances designed not only to prevent it from
transccndng its own orbital limits, but to guard
against aggressions from other sources. The
objects to be attained, as declared in the pream-
BILE must also be kept in view, when we are call
ed to expound its provisions; and we are bound
to construe 1t so as to preserve and advance
them all. The purpose, as declared in the pre-
amble, was 'to form more perfect Union, es-
tablish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, pro-
vide for the common defence, promote the gen.
eral welfare and secure the blessings OF liberty
to ourselves and our posterity." Each of these
objects are supposed to be secured by the Con-
stitution, and no one of them must be overlook
ed in too eager desire to lend supposed etii-
cheney to some other. To do SO would endan-
ger the whole. TO "provide for the common
defence" is one purpose avowed for establishing
the Constitution, and the duty devoves on Con-
gress to execute it; but it must not be executed
in such manner as TO encroach on the para
mount purpose of securing ''the blessings OF
liberty to ourselves and our posterity," also de-
clared. This is one instance to show that no
legislation, nor no construction can be valid or
sound which is not in har nony with every pro-
vision Of the Constitution.
In the light of these general and fundamen-
tai principles, we must investigate the grave
questions presented by the bill Of the complain
ant now before US. And here l may express
my regrets, that it did not meet the views of the
government officials having IN charge the law
department for this United States district, TO
appear at the argument of this case, of which
they had notice, and give us the benefit of their
views and researches on the momentous, ques-
tons involved. 1t can hardly, presume, be
fairly attributable to disregard of what might
be the ultimate judicial action of the State on
the question, or in contempt of State authority
! altogether Whatever may have been the rea-
son for the course adopted, the magnitude of the
question involved is not at all diminished there
by, nor ia dutymost carefullyto examine the