Dayton daily empire. [volume] (Dayton [Ohio]) 1850-1865, 1865-03-07


ScHENCK 1t will be remembered that one
OF the pet schemes of this gentleman to op-
press his constituents, is his proposition TO
make the individual who hires substitute
responsible for his continuance in service
and il tha substitute deserts the person who
employed him is again to be enrolled and
again liable to conscription. Schenck has la
bored hard to make this monstrous and unjust
oppression the law of the land.
The following proceedings transpired on
one of the last days OF the session of Con.
gress
Mr.. J. G. Allen. / move 20 amend this sec.
tion by striking out the following:
That hereafter, in every case of actual de.
sertion by substitute, if such person so de.
serting shall have been, since the passage of
this act, mustered into the service as sub
stitute for person liable to draft and not
actually drafted the name of such person so
liable to draft, and who furnished such subst.
tute, shall be again placed upon the list, and
he shall be liable to be drafted for the unex.
pired term of service of such substitute SO de-
serting"
/ move this amendment in order to express
my views in reference to this provision. 1t
will not be contended that this law, or any
other conscript law that we can have In re.
publican government is not repugnant to the
Feelings OF our peoplei and this feature en-
grated upon this bill by the Committee on
Military Affairs in my judgment, is the most
repugnunt provision that has been submitted
TO the House or country am not at all as.
tonished that the gentleman from Ohio TMr.
Schenck should Insist upon this provision,
for time aud again has he announced to this
House that in hts opinion the substitute clause
ought to have been stricken out of all bills for
conscription. Congress, however, has seen fit
to adopt different policy, and the House
time and again has expressed its views
upon this question and now, near the
close OF the session, when heavy
call for men is pending, the Military Commit
tee, through its chairman, presents this bill
with provision in it not only making every
man res ponsbe for his own sins against the
Government, but responsible for other peo
pies sins Such provision in law of this
kind can not be found upon the statute books
OF any country IL is unjust and wrong, and
can not be defended upon the theory of the
gentleman from Ohio that every man owes
service to his Government | admit that every
man owes alleg and service to the Gov
ernment Of the country. But where the legis,
lation OF the country prescribes how he may
discharge that allegiance and service, insist |
that IL would be violent wrong to make him |
responsible after he has complied with the law
and furnished his substitute
/ have no doubt, Mr.. Speaker, that in many |
instances parties have been put in as subsii-
tutes who have deserted from the service But |
is that any reason why you should compel |
those who have furnished substitutes to be. |
come personally responsible for the failure of |
their substitutes TO perform their duties as re
qulred by the regulations of the War Depart- |
ment and by the law OF the land2 We had |
better, at once, strike out of the conscription |
law every provision looking TO the employ |
ment of substitutes than adopt this section. |
1t may be that men dodesert Doubtless there
are thousands OF instances in which they have
deserted. Bot that is not the fault of |
the citizens who employed them and put
them into the service. They are not in de- |
fault They have complied with the proVis-
ions of law. They have done what the gentle
man from Ohio Mr., Sehenck or any other
member of the House would do-discharge
faithfully every obligation and duty which he
owes to the Government by complying with
the law After the substitute has passed be-
yond the control of the principal after he has
put himself under the command, direction,
and supervision of the military officers, shou d |
we still exact another important obligation
from him, that is to make him responsible
for the good conduct Of the sues cslitute II
Why, Mr.. Speaker, if the gentleman from
Ohio can maintain that principle he may as
we'll 60 step-further and insist that there
shall be inserted in these CONSUMPTION laws a
provision making the principal responsible
for the substitute not only in the case of de-
sertiOn, but also in case of cowardiee in bat !
tie In my view open cowardice on the field l
of battle is as great crime as desertion and 1
II the principal be held responsible lOr his
substitute in the one clse, he should be so
held in the other case also
1t does seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that ifl
the gentleman frou Ohio had sought TO make
his bill odous in the last degree to the people \
be could not have done so better than by EN-
bodying IN it this provision am in favor Of
filling up the ranks of the army, and repeat
a sentiment that uttered a moment ago on
Another questioR--that am proud of belong
ing TO a State that has not had TO resort, in
any considerable measure TO eonseription laws
to fill up its quota Of men required for the de- .
Tense of the Government | may be permitted
to say further, that if we had pursued differ
eHt policy, and relied upon the patriotism OF
the people to defend the country, believe We
could have prosecuted this war with more sue.
cess than il has been prosecuted under the pet
seheme Of the gentleman from Ohio IMr.
Sehenckl Of forcing men into onr armies.