Washington telegraph. [volume] (Washington, Ark.) 1839-1871, 1863-06-17

for military service; that the ASSUMPTION of
power over these matters by the Confederate
States took away the jurisdiction of the States.
The closing remarks Of the court upon this
argument are very lucid, and as much con-
densed a. we can make them. We scarcely
think them 80 satisfactory as in the preceding
case, but 50 the law j. construed and fixed in
that State hereafter, and there should Ne no
further argument until the court may revise
its own decision.
1T j. proper to bear in mind that there are
two governments. State and Confederate; that
one j. distinct and separate from the other;
that each il supreme within it, Legitimate
sphere Of action: and. finally. that both have
concurrent powers or jurisdiction over the
subject matter !" controversy. The two gov
ernments are entitled rs a matter uf ri -ht 70
the military service Of every individual; but,
when the Confederate has exercised its juris
diction. the State must give way. These prin-
ciples have been sJrcnuously con;ended for by
the counsel for the plaintiff. and he has shown
abundant authority to sustain his position.
The whole question il whether not the
principal. who has furnished a substitute. or
the owner Of slaves. who j. tillinE his lands AZ
/
being in the military service Of the general
government. Ne are nj a loss 10 understand
how il II possible for one. who j. discharged
nr exempted I'D fancy that Inv j. soldier o'
the government, when he j. pursuing at home
the aTocatipn If q planter, physician. or nier
chant II he he discharged. thee his ccnnec-
ton with the army j. broken, and he becomes
private citizen, subject to nli other legal OBJ
| legations, one Of which is 10 render service 10
| the State. lie Owci service 20 the State rs
well a. TO the Confederate States. his discharge
from the latter obligation can IN no wise an CT
/ his former obligation. II certainly never en-
tered the mind of Congress. when dischargin-
soldiers from Confederate service, that Ia,
discharge would 20 beyond Confederate serTice
and reach tie obligation Of The discharged 70.
wards their own State. Inieei, the act O
Congress j. not susceptible of such constIuc
ton: nor could Congress if il made the AZ.
tempt. Le Unsuitable IL such c9urse- Fol
that would Le n pnlpable invasion Of the re-
served rights vi thc States
In few words Congress has the right X
the services XII ellie inhabitants nj THE States
and when ID exercises that delegated trust. tLt
power III the State. % rue subject matter i
paralvsal: hut when Congress has declared
BY exemption or discharge. its unwillingnes!
10 exzct the military ser ices Of these indi
NlGGalN. Tnr STATES are AT alDtEAN 70 cum ~
these parties 70 the discharge % their obiiga-
ton TO do military d1ty for the States them.
selves vide Confederate constitution, sec
| VIII. Nos. II, l., Is. H. IL, 10.
We announce the doctrine that whilst a
citizen of III. State is not in the actual per-
sonal service o: the government Of the Con.
federate Statcs. he il liable 20 military and NJ
other service TO his own State. -
II j. therefore decreed that the said Thoma
J. Wafer be delivered 10 the custody and com
mand " rhc sail Cant. Haynes Of the Stat
militia and hi superiors ia Office. ~ serv
o. soldier in the state militia a. required b,
law"
Substitute. The g. 5. district court If Hunts
vile, Ala, has decided In a case Of habea
corpus. that co1sc-ipt who has furnished
substitute under is years Of age and been dis
charged, cannot be again enrolled upon tn
desertion OF the substitute. The court seemed
to lay no stress upon the point of desertioD
and held that although the acceptance of I
substitute under Is years Of age was prohibited
by the regulations. yet if such a subsfitut,
was accepted and a discharge granted ih,
principal, by tie officer charged With the duty
no other officer could avoid his act