Weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1858-1865, 1864-01-06

viii 1t be recorded in impartial history that in
this case there was no p1Omise, no undertaking, no
guarantee; on the part Of the government
What promise can be more obligatory than that
embodied in this lawf What consideration more
valid than an act performed on the good faith Of the
government, under laws regularly approved regu-
larly published, and regularly executed by govern
ment officials What satisfaction more imposing
execution more bindng-what tenure more inde-
feasible than the legislation of Congress thus en-
dorsed, confirmed, and rstifedp And yet this is
"no contract?" --=-.-
There is yet another and higher consideration in
volved in this proposed model legislation. As the
laws existed, and the orders of the War Depart
ment were issued and executed, a very large num-
Der of men who were not liable to service At the
time were induced to put into the service for the
war substitutes in order to anticipate any subse-
quent call of men over forty years of age or any
call by the Governor Of Virginia. These men were
regularly and authoritatlvsly discharged from all
service" by the Governor Of Virginia.
Are those discharges worth nothing! Is the de-
liberate legislation Of Virginia worth nothing?-
ISee Act 5, Feb, 1863. Is the official act of the
Governor Of Virginia, based on an ezesuted ccnsid
eration utterly worthless? Is there "no contract"
here? Are individuals only to be held bound and
the government relieved at will by post acto leg
is)ation9 Are there no principles involved in this
matter which underlie aud support the very frame
work of all constitutional government! What is
society bu: a contract, Compact What is gov
eminent bnt compact9 Is not Congress and the
Confederate government the result of compact!
What posoer has Congress that is not expressly
granted under contract? Should it, in its hot haste,
and inconsiderate ZEAL gaolate its contract Nth Vr
ginia Are we hereafter to be told, when a more
centralized or consolidated government may. in
the estimation of President Davis, "be deemed
necessary for the public Defence" that the oonfed-
crate government only granted privilege" to
the States Let gentlemen think.
What power has Congress to pass retroactive
and retrospective law? Will not the proposed act
of Congress be retroactive and retrospective?-
Will it not dvest rights legally vested? Will it not
until rendered, or sought to be rendered null By
this la,o now proposed? See Sedgewck on Statutes,
pps 1873, 4O6, 479, 4s4, $780, 696, and Johnson's
Reports. Also, examine General Orders, current
SERIES 1862, o. 80, 81, At, 81; 70, and 90. Also,
General Order No. 80, current series, 1858.
These orders will unfold the advised deliberate,
authoritative action of the War Department. guar
anteeing the rights and immunities of those who
put in substitutes, and declaring the intention, pur
pose, and policy of the War Department. Are all
thesemere vagaries, delusive promises, unmeaning,
temporising catch.words, to entrap2 1t is to be
hoped not. If they should be so treated by Con-
gress may it visit such ruinous legislation on
the Treasury Department when the monetary pres
sure becomes too serious for the wholesome legisla
ton of Congress- May it never occur to President
Davis to inform the bond holders that the Govern
nent entered into no contract with them, and, if
their bonds are not paid, they will have the high
qualification of knowing that, at all events, they
have "added to the services Of war;?
have thus, gentlemen presented as briefly as
can such considerations as it oeFred to me neces-
sary and proper to invoke youfcalm, mature de.
liberation or this grave subject, in which so many
Of your constituents are deeply interested, and,
more than ALL which, in my opinion, so seriously
touches the good faith of the Government In doing
so have but discharged my duty to ny clients.
am sure you will appreciate my motives.
But it is said the necessities of the country re.
qure these men in the service. What necessity
can be more exacting than the preservation of the
good faith Of the Government? None, IN my opin-
ion. But is there no way by which all of these
men Can be rendered serviceable, and yet the good
faith Of the government preserved2 1t is certain
that these men never asked Congress to pass the
law which it is now sought to abrogate. twas the
voluntary act of Congress. Are the innocent to
suffer to screen the guilty?
No one-however old or young-has right to
refuse duties whicA he owes to his Government. 1t
is the first duty of evory and BOY In the Con
f.derate States to .fght and If need be die, in de-
fence Of our taay Cannot these men fairly and
legally be required to form part of the reserved
corps, only to serve when occasion renders their
services necessary This part of our defence has
been unfortunately neglected. An act it seems to
me- which places these men in this branch Of the
service could not be complained Of?
would scorn myself and belle my heritage were
l. professionally or otherwise, to counsel any one,
be he client not, to sairk duty in such times
these. But while am bound, personally and pro-
fessionally TO stimulate the weary, encourage the
timid, and shame the laggard, | can never fail in
my duty to my clients, or my devotion to the laws
and good faith Of the government. And while l
would counsel all to spurn President Lincoln as
the Judas Iscarot of modern history, who, in kiss
ing the goddess of liberty, betrayed the spirit of
freedom, I cannot but express the wish Qor the
good of my country that President Davis could
manifest more wisdom and less vanity; more true
moral frmness and less selfw Then. indeed,
We shall be more than conquerors in the race set
before US: | would address him in the very Ian.
guage used, under somewhat similar circumstances,
by Lord Burleigh to the imperious Elizabeth, when
she had alienated the affections anu awakened the
.prrehensons Of the English people: " Gain their
hearts and they will furnish men and money!
These very words were reproduced BY Sir Robert
Cotton, and respectfully whispered in the ears Of
Charles the First in the most critical period of his
eventful reign. Elizabeth adopted them, saved her
crown and was the most popular person in all Eng
land. Charles rejected them, lost his crown and
head, and we'll nigh ruined his country.
Respectfully, JOHN H. GILMER.
Richmond, Dec. 18, 1863
REvERp7 JOHNSON ON SLAvERY.-Reverdy John
son, of Maryland in late speech, in the Yankee
Senate said:
1t might be admitted, he thought that in the eye
the Constitution slaves are property in those States