The Nashville daily union. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1862-1866, 1864-01-03
lester from John A. GIImei
North CarOsina.

Messrs. Lyons, Staples. Good
combe, and others, Members OfCC
from Virginia:
GEETLENKE-I have been retain
counsel fer many of that class o.
constituents who are sought 10 b
braced in and affected by, the pr
legislation of Congress on the sub
question, now pending your bod
have neither The time nor inclinat
lobby service, and therefore prefer
rect and manly appeal to you and
Of zen, in behalf Of this respectful
telligent and influential portion Of
cons it1eL IS.
1t is proposed to revoke, amt
abrogate sll previous legislation
gross on the subject of substitutes
army. and to place in the service
who have, under that system Of
ton, put in subaiitntes fog the va
this proposition my clients, "
your constituents, have asked "a
opinion in this form: "Has Congr
constitutional or rightiul autho
pass . law reyoking and disaVOE
previous legislation on this questi
if such an act should be passed,
or can il, divest sc srued or accruinl
under the previous acts of CCngrt
the concurrent orders, rules and
tiOns of he War Department iu {
snce and execution of those laWs
To this proposition l have IN
fiDgly replied that Congress has
constitutional or rightful autbOrit
that no Law thus passed can legal
vest accrued or accruing rights pc
under, and by virtue of, such pr
legislation of Congress, and sane
by the concurrent and eIecutory
of the War Department.
Upon this subject, As . legal pr
ton, 1 had supposed their could
serious difftreBce of opinion. In {
seems I Wss mistaken.
There be quotes from JEFF Davis
message. JEFF proposes to conscrip
eFybody, without regard TO VIII
they have procured substitutes
II is always painful to differ Wit
distinguished > man and-sO elevat
public functionary as the President,
is supposed t. be &c learned il the
nicipAl as he is erudite in constitute
law. must, however, very respectid
say, on this OCCASION. that, to my mi
: more dangerous and pslPable inf
ton of every constitutional barrier,
. more tisgrant invasion Of every lea
sanction, never flowed from the pen
fell from the lips Of imperial royalty
France or England. | believe l hazal
nothing ia assuming that no bslder q
sumption of power over vested rights
private individuals was ever claimed
asserted by Charles l or James II d
England, OF by either Of the Emperors d
France.
Mr.. Davis says there was no cor
tract" and the proposed Law will NOS
Q "breach of cOntraci;" "tO accept = sui
stitute was 10 confer = privilege, not
euter into q contract" Mahommed Il
Emperor of the Turks, at the taking
NegrOpont, having promised man
snare bis head, caused him to be cut
two through the middle Of the bod
TamerlAns, after having entered the CT
OF Sebastia, under the promise of shed
ding 10 blood, caused all the soldiers
the garrison to be buried alive. W.
there mo contract in these instances
No promise binding On the conscience
the imperial guarsntoFs? do not read
any here in the books that these glaring
and disreputable subterFuges have ever
been justified because there was ''no
contFactD
But let us see If there was indeed emo
contract" in these subslituts cases. A
man from Mississippi, impslled by high,
and patraotic motives, volunteered for
one year in June, 1851 He lef. At homs
one son, his wife, and several younger
children, all daughters. This son was
eighteen years old. This man owned q
small plantation and two negro men. In
April (l6tb) 1862, Congress passed the
CONSUMPTION Bill. This took the son,
and retained the father, being under
thiriy-five years of age. They are now
both in the army by the act of Congress
There is no one to look after or protect
the family and property Of his man.
The act, by Congress, however, which
takes his son, provides for the substitu-
ton by the father. This man, confiding
in tie plighted faith and pledged act OF
Congress, the President aud the Govern
ment, determined TO avail himself of this
legislation, not as privilege" bat a.
guaranteed right, vested power, >
valid promise.
Bat be has no ready money. he b)r-
rows Eve thousand dollars 10 purchase .
substitute, and thus relieve himself To
enable him TO borrow this sum be hiss 70
execute q deed Of trust on his little
homestead and two negroes. He does
this, and the substitHts IL put in, &C
cepted, and he is hOnOrably discharged
from the service for the war. He returns
10 his farm, expecting, by industry, self
denial, and economy, 70 release his land
from the membranes created, on the
faith of his discharge.
Congress, At the instance and under
the advice of President Davis, snnnls bis
discharge, aud places him again in the
service. His negroes run of-his crops
fail for want of his presence; his out
standing deb. Of Eve thousand dollars
becomes due; the creditor enforces the
deed of trust, and advertises his land for
sale, which had been thus hypOtbecatsd
on the faith Of the act Of Congress, sp-
proved by the President snd promui-
gated by the Secretary Of War, a. an
army order, General Order No. 30, cur
rent series, 1922
Would bill in chancsry lie in the
Mississippi Courts 10 eDjoin the sale Of
this lano? Would the Courts adiadge
that IN this case their was = failure or
3 fraud in the consideration? / appre-
bend not. Perhaps the distinguished
Senator from that State, who has astouu-
ded 'he ecultry By his military bin, pro-
posing TO enroll al the men under 60
years OF age, and to render them subject
70 tie law military, can inform us. I
rather incline TO the opinion that the
land would have to be sold under = dec
tual order Of the Court, and the poor
MississiPpiaR leftto that enJlezlatic con
soiEtion, 30 CURLY promulgated in bis
message, That he had adasf % 0e servies
S0llisr MT 6llerl0iss liable 10 b enrollsf."
Will it be recorded in impartial his
tory that in this case there was no Dr0Bs-