Raftsman's journal. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1854-1948, 1865-03-22

niously argued, that this I'd section of the
amended Act repeals so much OF the 18th
section of the Act of the Sd of March, 1868,
rs makes it the duty of the President to
take into consideration the period of service
of the volunteers and militia from the sew
eral States. The argument in favor of the
repeal rests wholly upon the words of the
amendatory Act-''the number which has
been previously furnished therefrom." 1t
Is insisted that number" as here used,
means an arithmetical count. | can not so
understand it.
| The Act of the Sd March, 1868, had pre-
| scribed a mode by which the number of men
due from the several States, should be as
| certalned; and that mode required, not a
| simple count, but consideration of the pc
| Rod of service of men previously furnished.
| Congress used the UOrd number in the ID
section of the amendatory Act, understand
| ing that the mode of count prescribed in the
original Act would be preserved.
There are many evidences upon the face
of the amendatory Act which shows that it
was not the intention of Congress to change
| the mode of count prescribed in the origi-
| nal act.
The amended act does not undertake to
say how the quota of State or district is to
be ascertained. In ascertaining what num-
| ident must pursue the mode prescribed in
| the twelfth section of the original act-he
must take into consideration the period of
service; and yet under the construction in
sisted uron, when he comes to equalize the
draft, as authorized to do by the amended
act, In the districts, he must be controlled by
simple numbers. 1t cannot be that Con
gress intended one mode of count for the
States and districts, and n different and
wholly inconsistent one for the subdivisions
or districts. IncXtricable confusion would
enSue.
From the language used in various parts
of the amendatory act, 1T is evident Congress
did not intend to disturb the mode of count
prescribed in the original act. For instance,
In the eighth section of the amendatory act,
it is said that the town, ward, or township
shall be creditedby his o,ca services, aud in
the seventh section, ''the period for which
he shall have been enlisted, and ''the pc
riod for which he shall have been drafted,
all going to show that time of service was
held to be an element in the count.
Nor do l think that the argument in ia
vor of the repeal is aided by the language of
the 1st section of the act, entitled IAN act
further to regulate and provide for the call
ing out the national forces, approved 4th
July, 1864. The act says, that ''any such
volunteer, or in case of draft, as hereinafter
provided, any substitute shall be credited to
the town. &c Congress meant that the
credit should be given according to the mode
of count prescribed in the act of Sd March,
1868.
The whole purpose of the I'd section of
the amendatory act was to enable the
President To equalize the draft in the sever
al districts, surely not to have one mode of
count in ascertaining the quotas of the sew
eral states and districts. Besides, it is
would thus incidentally strike from so impor-
tant statute feature so prominent and e.
quitable
| am, therefore, of the opinion that the
mode of ascertaining and assigning to States
and districts their respective quotas, as pre-
scribed in the 18th section of the act of the
Sd March, 1868, is not repealed, and that
the same mode must be pursuid naequali-
zing the draft among the ub-divisions of
each district.
Next comes the question, what is the
mode of count prescribed In the 18th section
of the act of March Sd, 1868?
1t is very plain that Congress regarded
that consideration on the period of service
ical one. Some credit was to be given for
the period of service as well as for the man.
Congress has fixed various periods of ser
vice, and State and districts, and fractions of
districts, had furnished men for those peri
ods Of service. Now how is the credit to
be given2
Before proceeding to answer the question,
it NAV be proper to state. that it is insisted
that the words ''period of time and time
of service" as used in the 18th section of
the act of March g. 1868, mean something
different from term Of serUtce. 1t seems to
me that the phrases mean one and the same
thing When the word term Is used in ref
erence to time, it is. according to the lexl-
cogrophers, very nearly the synonym OF pc
7fod The difference betwixt them, If any,
is too uncertain and shadowy to believe that
Congress meant by the use of one, some
thing different from what is understood by
the other But the words period and term,
both occur in after parts of the acts now un-
der consideration In the 18th section OF
the act of 1868, the term Of service Is spo
ken of, and the term of re.enllstment,
whilst inthe 7th section of the amended act
it is the period for which he shall have en-
listed, and the period for which he shall
have been drafted Thus it will be preceiv-
ed, that upon the very face Of these acts,
Congress used these words as meaning the
same thing. 1t happens, too, in the act,
that either word may De USED ana yet tne
same idea Intended, as in the Sth section OF
the amended act, where the language is,
'shall be credited by his services.
Regarding then period of service, and
term of service as meaning the same
thing, any argument predicated upona differ
ence must be disregarded And thus we
are brought back to the question, how is the
credit to be given? Must the credit be for
the time of actual service, or the period of
enlistment?
think that Congress intended by the