The Alleghanian. [volume] (Ebensburg, Pa.) 1859-1865, 1863-11-19
.Tne conscraptien Act.

Aouo SoIic SuppUfC III Lie OliicioUo opilioho
rendered by the judges of the Supreme
Court upon the Conscription act. The
Chief Justices, Mr.. Justice Woodward, and
hlI. Justice Thompson, in declaring that
act unconstitutional, are dou5ly wrong, not
only in the question of law, but in using
the law as an instrument to embarrass the
Government 1t is not, however, their
opinions or purposes that we shall now
discuss it is the very clear aud able op-
inion delivered by Mr.. Justice Strong,
affirming the eonstitutionality Of the act,
sustained by sn argument which evades
Go difficulty and leaves none unsettled.
Whoever reads the Constitution with
the object Of finding in its letter proof
that II does not authorize Congress to draft
into the military service Of the United
States the general militia, is confronted by
this express provision, Congress shall
have power to raise and support armies"
accompanied by 10 restriction, excepting
this, that "no appropriations Of money to
that use shall be for longer term than
two years" He will be forced to find
elsewhere provisions which, by implication
restrict the power thus formally without
restriction granted, or to abandon all
thoughts of proving that the Constitution
is violated by the draft. And where will
he find these provisions How will he
make good his assertion that the Consti-
tuition limits the power OF Congress to
authorization The difficulty is obvious.
IT the trainers Of the Constitution had
intended to limit this very importans pow
or, they would have done so in diseet aud
formal expression; they would not have
left the limitation in inference
Dir. Justice Woodward aEirms the un-
cons,itutionaity Of the act upon forced
construction Of the clause declaring that
"Corg gress shall have power to provide for
calling forth the militia for certain pur
poses, and aaroitly Implies, without fol-
raaiiy asserting, that this clause is full
definition OF the only manner In which
armies can conssisctionally be raised
This is purely en- assumption 1t is justi-
fed by no reference In the one clause to
anything In the other. The clauses are
absolutely distinct: one authorizes Con-
gress to raise armies, without ang restric-
ton as to their number or size the other
authorizes Congress to call out the militia
with definition Of the purposes for which
it shall be called out. Congress may act
by authority Of either clause, or by both
clauses. II they are inteHded to apply to
The same necessities and embody the same
principles, one is clearly superfuous, and
the trainers Of the Constitution were igno-
rant of the use of words. Mr.. Justice
Strong is wholly right when he says -
clad any limitation upon the mode of
raising armies been intended i. must have
been expressed. 1t would not have been
left to be gathered from doubtful conjee-
ture." Yet it is upon conjecture entirely
that Mr.. Justice Woodward has based his
argument, and entirely upon hypothesis
that he argues that the power to raise
armies, conferred by one clause, means no
more than the power to call out the militia
conferred by another.
Mr.. Justice Strong, by an argument
which exhausts the question, proves that
a State has no power over It's militia that
is superior to the power of Congress to
raise armies from the general population
of the country. This is very near the root
of the whole matter. He shows that, upon
the same ground by which the eonstitu-
Va tuc oidIt Is uSHItO, TIC COISCl-
tutionai authority of Congress to raise
armies by voluntary enlistment may be
denied; for, if State has the right to
forbid Congress to take the militia into the
National service by one way, it has the
right to forbid Congress to take the mill
tia in any way. 1t the authority of the
States separately is superior to that of the
States collectively, then the method of
raising armies is not the matter in dispute;
it is the right Of Congress to recruit or
draft in any State without the consent Of
the State government, that is denied. In
deed, the whole question is Of State rights
and the authority of the Constitution, and
Mr.. Justice Woodward and his concurrent
colleagues are advancing the dangerous
doctrine that State rights are above
National authorities This is the doctrine
used by traitors to destroy the Republic;
the doctrine BY which South Carolina
justified secession; the doctrine which, if
true, makes our nationality worthless, and
the American people guilty of lawless
tyranny in their resolution to preserve the
Union by force. 1t is not doctrine
which thoughtful and loyal men can hold,
and we thank Mr.. Justice Strong for his
masterly analysis Of its sophistry ry.-PhiSa
Press.
Gov. CURTIN AT HoME.--Our friends