Litchfield enquirer., 1863-07-30

lfy ana tnereup0n Sucn person so lurHlShlnS
 the substitute, or paying the money, shall be discharged from further liability under that
 draft.''
 A part of the 17th section is as follows; I ssSEc. IT. And Dc it further enacted, That
 any person enrolled and drafted according to
 the provisions of this act, who shall furnish
 an acceptable substitute, shall thereupen re-
 ceive from the board of enrolment certif-
 cate of discharge from such draft, which shall
 exempt him from military duty during the
 time for which he was drafted"
 By the 18th section it will be seen to divide l itself nearly as follows:
 l 1st. No drafted man is absolutezy required Ito go. 2d. He mag go or procure an acceptable su5-
 stitute.
 3d. He may pay $500.
 4th. The money paid is for the presentation
 of substitute.
 9th. The person furnishing substitute, or paying $500, is discharged from further lia.
 bility under tAat drajt.
 | The 17th section, it will be seen, is little different from the 18th in this.
 The 18th seems to exempt all furnishing a
 substitute, or paying the $500, while the 17th
 seems to exempt only those who furnish a sub
 stitute There may be difference in another
 particular The 18th is quite definite in ex-
 empting only from that dratt, and embraces
 all who furnish 2 substitute, or pay the $500;
 while the 17th exempts .for the time for which ft.I .IL. who furnish substitute. The draft is for
 three years or the war, so that the man who is drafted and goes, goes for that time, and the man who furnishes a substitute furnishes him for the same time, but, query, as to the man who pays his $500. But of this hereafter.
 Upon the ground of hardship and inequali- ty, do not see it.
 1st. The liability to draft is equal
 2d. When drgtted, the same equality exists, the law allowing aU three. courses of action, either to go, procure an acceptable substitute, or pay $500 that the government may procure one. The $500 is for substitute, the duty of procuring one being assumed by the govern ment, instead of the drafted man. Each man may, in one of these ways, exempt himself from duty, for the law gives him the privilege,
 But it may be sad, that part arc CT may be unable to purchase exemption, by furnlsh- ing substitute, or by paying the S3oo-that no course is left them but to go. This may be true But whose fault is it? Is it the fault of the government Is it the fault of the law? Is it the fault of the President? No, clearly none of these, but on the contrary 1t is fault inherent in the composition of sool- ety. Mans liability to draft is an inherent virtue, existing in his physical development, The law does not create it. The law falls with equal weight upon at who are liable to draft. It does not say that part drafted shall go. It does not say that any s'taJ go. The law makes no such distinction. Where one has the right or privilege of procuring substi- lute or paying $500, aU have the same. The law docs not attempt to regulate tho inequall- ties in the composition of society, and the government having right to demand the ser vices of all who are liable to draft, places those services upon perfect equality, and gives to each the same privilege of exemption from duty. Where is the hardship Where s..l.,-:--l-.al:.v:--esi r1frs-z One part of the drafted men go, another furnish substitutes, another part pay $500 for the procuration of substitutes by the government. Where is the inequality? The privilege of one is as broad and as extensive as the other. If some pos sess' the means If purchasing exemption from duty, means not enjoyed or possessed by all, I ask again, whose fault is 1t? 1. is not the government, it is not the law, but it exists solely and strictly in indioiduaL ability.
 Suppose the law to have been that the draft should be exclusively from those able to fur nish substitute, or pay $500. there would surely have been an inequality, ma rked and clear, looking as if the government intended to rely upon the pecuniary more than the physical power of the people, in bringing the present contesttoa termination. Or suppose it had been that the draft should be exclu- sively from among those who do not possess the means of either purchasing a substitute Of Ol paylAS lpe d2ouo, tueTe WOulu udSe UeeH an inequality as mar rked as in the prior case, looking as if the government intended to rely more exclusively upon the physical than the pecuniary power. But such is not the division of liability. It is not marked by pecuniary lines, or pecuniary ability alone, nor is it marked by physical power alone. As both are essential to the prosecution of war, the law calls both into the service and without at l tempting to be exclusive gives to all equality | of privileges, either to go, furnish substi- ute, or pay $500 for one. Does government make distinctions in the protection which it affords to the life and property of it's citizens If it protects all in these essential partiou- lars, may it not justly call for the physical power of the citizen, without being resisted in it's call, because no distinctions exist in the law, harmonizing with the distinctions in the of society? Suppose the govern ment should use it's legislative power to pro- teet the life and property of those only who are able to procure substitutes or pay the $500, what would those who may not be able to do either think? Or suppose the case to