Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1864-01-01
PRINCIPALS AND SUBSTITUTES.

Messrs. Lyons, Staples, Goode, Holcon5e, and
others, Members of Congress from Virginia:
GENTLEMEN: have been retained as counsel for
many of that class of your constituents Wno%re
soueht TO be embraced in and affected By the pro-
posed legislation of Congress on the substitute ques
ton, now pending your body. bave neither the
time or inclination for lobby service and therefore
prefer direct and'manly appeal to you, and each
of you in behalf of this respectable, Intelligent, ana
influential portion of your constituents
Under the most favorable circumstances SUCH
period IS ths-egislation is most delicate ana
responsible duty. Ii is necessarily accompanied py
innumerable and serious embarrassInents. The snb-
ject matter o. this communication is eeset with Pc
cuar and painful endorsements. Yet the ne
cessities of the times the posture of our military,
civil, social and Judicial affairs, render necessary
the wsest forecast the delicate foresight the
most deliberate caution and the sternest integrity
Public faith, like private virtue, needs the nm
pregnabe barrier of inexibe principle to shield 1t
sfrom outward assaults and inward temptations and,
like private virtue when once distinctly tainted from
outward influence inward corruption, public faith
is irretrievably lost No patch work can ever re-
store it; no whitewsshing will ever regain 1t It's
original purity impress it with the original stamp
of popular or historic appreciation.
Il is proposed to revoke, annu 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
islation, put in substitutes for the war. On this
proposition my clients, all of whom are your eonstt
uents, have asked my legal opinion in this form:
HAS Congress the constitutional or rghtful author
ity to pass law revoking and disaYowing its pre-
vious legislation on this question and if such an
act should be passed. does it, or can it diyest &C
crued or accruing rights under the previous acts of
Congress- and the concurrent ORDERS rules, and reg
ulations of the War Department in furtherance and
execution of those laws y
To this proposition have unhesitatngly replied
that Congress has no such constitutional or right
full authority and that no law thus passed can legal
" 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, I had
supposed there could be 20 serious difference of
opinion. In this it seems / was mistaken. Presi-
dent Davis, in his regular message to Congress, has
used the language now quoted, which it seems has
met an affirmative response from several very able,
enlightened, and doubtless patriotic Senators and
members of your body. The President says:
"Jn view of the large CONSUMPTION recently Or
dered by the enemy, and their subsequent call for
volunteers to be followed, if ineffectual by still
further draft we admon;shed that no effort must
be spared to add largely to our effective force as
promptly as possible. The sources ofsupply are to
be found by restoring to the army all who are i'm
properly absent putting an end to substitution,
modifying the exemption law, restricting details,
and placing in the ranks such of the able bodied
men now employed as wagoners, nurses, cooks, and
other employees, are doing service for which the
negroes may be found competent
"The act of 10th 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 not 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 -unwll.
ling to avail themselves of theopportunty thus afford
ed of avoiding the military service of their country
s. 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 be breach of
contract To accept substitute to conera privi-
ege not eper intoa contract and whenever the sut-
sttute liable to CONSUMPTION it would seem
to follow that the principal whose place he had TAKEN
should respond for him, as the government had re-
ceiVed no 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
1t is always painful to differ with so distinguished
a man and so elevated public functionary as the
President who is supposed to be as learned in the
municipal as he is efudite in constitutional law.
must however, very respectfully say on this occa-
sion, that, to my mind, more dangerous and pal.
psble infraeon of every constitutional barrier and
a more fragrant invasion Of every legal sanction
flowed from the pen or fell from the lips OF
imperial royalty in France or England | believe
hazard nothing in assuming that no holder assump-
ton of power over vested rights OF private ndivld
uals ever claimed or asserted by Charles l. or
James II. of England or ~ either of the Emperors
of France.
Mr.. Davis says there was "no contract" and the
proposed law will not be "a breach of contract"
" to accept a substitute to confer privilege
not to enter into a contract" Mahomed, the EN-
peror Turks at the taking of Negroport having
promised man to spare his head caused him to be
cut in two through the middle of the body. Tanner.
ane after having engaged to spare the city Sebas
tia, under the promise ofsheddingno blood caused all
the soldiers of the garrison to be buried alive Was
there mo contract" in these inStances2 No pro-
mise binding on the conscience of the imperial guar
antors? do not read anywhere in the books that
these garng and dsreputable subterfuges have ever
been justified because there was "no contract"
But let US see if there was indeed no contract"
in these substitute cases. A man from Mississippi,
impeed by high and patriotic motives, volunteered
for one year in June, 1861. 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, Q6th) 1862, Congress passed the Con-
script BILL This took 10 the son, and retained the
father, being under thirty 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 this man. The act, by Congress,
however, which takes in his son, provides for the
substitution by the father.- This man, confdng in
the plghted faith and pledged act of Congress, the
President, and the government determines to avail
himself of this legislatouA-not as privilege" but
as guaranteed right, avestedpower valid promise.
But he has no ready money. He borrows five
thousand dollars to purchase substitute and thus
relieve himself 10 enable him to borrow this sum
he has to execute deed of trust on his little home
stead and two negroes. He does this and the sub