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

/ PRINCIPALS AND SUBSTITUTES.
Messrs Lyons, Staples, Goode, Holcom5e, and
others, Members of Congress from Virginia:
| GENTLEMEN: have been retained as counsel for
many of that class of your constituents who are
| sought to be embraced in and affected by the pro-
posed legislation of Congress the substitute ques
ton. now pending your body. have neither the
| time or ;ncDation for lobby SERVICE and therefore
prefer a direct and manly appeal to you, and each
of you in behalf of this respectable, intelligent and
| influential portion Of your constituents.
Under the most favorable circumstanccs-in such
period IS this-Iegisation is a most delicate and
responsibility. 1t is necessarily accompanied ny
innumerablc and serious endorsements. The s',o-
iect matter o. this communication is beset with Pc
| cuiiar and painful endorsements. Yet, the De-
cessties Of the times, the posture OF our military,
civil, social, and judicial affairs, render necessary
the wisest forecast, the most delicate foresight the
most deliberate caution and the sternest integrity
Public faith, like private virtue, needs the I'LL
pregnable barrier Of iuhexble principle to shield IT
from outward assaults and inward temptations and,
like private virtue when distinctly tainted from
outward influence inward corruption public faith
is irretrieyably lost No patch work can ever re-
store it; no whitewashing will ever regain 1t its
original purity, or impress it with the original stamp
Of popular or historic appreciation.
Ii is proposed to revoke, annul and abrogate all
previous legislation Of Congress on the subject Of
substitutes in the army, and to place in the regular
service all men who have, under that system Of leg
isla,on, put in substitutes for the war. On THIS
proposition my clients, all of whom your eonstit
uents, have asked my legal opinion in this form:
Has Congress the constitutional or rghtfu author
iy to pass law revoking and disavowing its pre-
vious legislation on this question; and if such an
act should be passed, does it, or it divest
crued or accruing rights under the previous acts of
Congress- and the concurrent orders rules, and reg
ulations of the War Department in furtherancs and
execution of those laws p
To this proposition have unhesitatjngly replied
that Congress has no such constitutional or right
full authority, and that no law thus passed legal
ly divest accrued or accruing rights perfected un-
der, and by virtue of such previous legislation of
Congress, and sanctioned by the concurrent and ex
ecutory orders of the War Department
Upon this subject, as legal proposition, had
supposed there could be serious difference of
opinion. In this it seems l was mistaken Presi
dent Davis, in his regular message to Congress- has
used the language now quoted which it seems has
met affirmativ response from several very able
enlightened, and doubtless patriotic Senators and
members Of your body. The President says:
In view Of the large CONSUMPTION recently or
dered by the enemy, and their subsequent call f,r
volunteers, to be followed. if Intellectual, by still
further draft admon:shed that no effort must
be spared to add largely to effective force as
promptly possible The sources Of supply are to
be found by restoring to the army all who are i'm
properly absent, putting al end to substitution,
modifying the exemption law, restricting details,
and placing in the ranks such Of the able bodied
men now employed as wasouers, nurses. cooks, and
other employees, doing service for which the
negroes may be found competent
"Tne act of 18th April, 1862, provides that per
sons not liable for duty may be received as substi
tutes for those who are, under such regulations as
may be prescribed by the Secretary Of War. The
policy of granting this privilege has rot been sus
tanned by experience Not only has the numerical
strength of the army been seriously impaired by
the frequent discretion for which substitutes have
become notorious, but dissatisfaction has been ex
cited among those who have been unable or unw,l
ling toavail themselves Of the opportunity thus afford
ed of Avoiding the military service Of their country.
II fully concur in the opinion expressed by the
Secretary, that there is ground for the objection
that provision, to include those who furnished
substitutes under the former CALL would bea breach Of
contract To accept substitute was to coafera prv-
ege not to enter into contract and whenever the sub.
stitute to CONSUMPTION it woud seem
follow that the principal whose place he had taken,
should respond for him, as the government had re-
| ceived MO consideration for his exemption Where,
| however, the new provision of law would fail to
embrace substitute now in the ranks, there ap.
pears, if the principal should again be conscribed,
to be an equitable ground for compensation to the
conscript, who then would have added to the SER
vice soldier not otherwise liable to enrolment"
1t is always painful to differ with So distinguished
| man and so elevated public functonary as the
| President who is supposed to be AZ learned in the
municipal as he is erudite in constitutional law.
must, however very respectfully say, on this occa
J sion, that, to my mind, more dangerous and pal
pable infracton Ct every constitutional barrier and
| more fragrant invasion of every legal sanction,
never flowed from the pen Or fell from the lips Of
imperial royalty III France or England. believe
hazard nothing in assuming that no holder assump-
ton of power vested rights Of private indivd
uals was ever claimed or asserted by Charles l. or
James H.. Of England, b. either of the Emperors
of Francs.
| Mr. Davis says there was "no contract" and the
| proposed law will not be "a breach of contract ="
ito accept a substitute was to confer privilege
not to enter into a contract" Mahomed, the EN-
peror the Turks at the taking of Negropor having
! promised a man TO spare his head, caused him to be
cut in two through the middle Of the body Tanner.
lane after having engaged spare the city of Sebas.
tia, uLder epronse shedding blood, caused all
the soldiers Of the garrison to be buried alive Was
| there "no contract" in these nstances2 No pro.
mise binding On tie conscience of the imperial guar
! antorsf | do not read anywhere in the books that
these garing and dsreputabc subterfuges have ever
been justified because there was mo contract"
| But let US see if there was indeed "no contract"
in these substitute cases. man from Mississippi,
impelled by high and patriotic motives volunteered
for one year in june 1851. He left at home one
son, his wife, and several younger children, all
daughters The son Was eighteen years old This
man owned . small plantation and two negro men.
In April, Q6sh) 1862, Congress passed the Con-
script bill. This took in the son, ard retained the
father, being under thirty Eve years Of age They
are now both 10 the army by the act of Congress
There is to look after or protect the family
and property Of this man. The act by Congress,
however, which takes in his son, provides for the
substitution by the father. This man, confiding in
the plighted faith and pledged act of Congress, the
President and the government determines to avail
himself Of this lesslasion-not as privilege" but
asaguaranteed right vested power, valid promise.
But he has NO ready money. He borrows five