The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1895-05-31
WHAT CHARTER AMOUNTS TO.
COL. MERCER SENDS COL. GAMBLER
An ANSWER To CAPT. BURKE's
POSITION.

General Laws - The Distinction
Made Between NiIitia and VOIun-
tcer Duty-Maj. LnwtOn's Letter 90
the Governor-Much Feeling on
the subject Among the Military
Here.
II appears that determined fight Is to
| be made on the Gate City Guard Of At
/ lanta until that company either agrees 10
| conform to the state military laws. or is
disbanded through the regular legal course.
There Is 10 doubt much feeling among
the members of the regular militia Of the
state on the subject. Especially is 1T so in
| Savannah where the military spirit is
| stronger, perhaps, than In any other sec
ton. In pursuance Of the protest first
made to the governor through the request
OF Col John S. Gambler of the Fifth Regi-
ment Infantry, by Col George A. Mercer,
he has written another letter, this time to
Col Gambler himself. in which he replies
pertinently TO the statements and argu-
ments made by Capt J. r. Burke Of the
Gate City Guard. TO the effect that his
company is incorporated by act Of the leg
islature and has the right to maintain its
existence Independent of the state laws
with regard to the militia.
Col. Mercer being the senior command
ing officer in the state, and the command
ing officer ranking next to the governor
his letter will undoubtedly have much
weight 1t was forwarded to Col. Gambler
by last nights mail. and is given to him to
use as he deems best in connection with
the fight he is making against the eXis-
tence Of the Guard as an Independent or
ganization. Col. MERGERS letter. which
discusses briefly, but to the point the legal
status Of the case. is as follows;
Savannah, May 3d. 1s95.-Col. John S.
Gambler, Commanding Fifth Regiment. In
fantry Georgia Volunteers. Atlanta, Ga.
Colonel-I have carefully read the inter-
view of Col. J. F. Burke, representing the
Gate City Guard, published in the Atlanta
Constitution of 2sth inst. commenting
upon my recent letter to the governor. 1
will not reply either to Col. Burke or to
the Atlanta Constitution, for that would
invest the argument with the character
lower its dignity and force.
1t is only as an important law of the
state, and as a question of principle, that
| am willing to discuss the issue at all.
Col. Burke thinks that in my letter |
avoided the issue. / cannot agree with
him. The point l raised and still insist
upon. is that the Gate City Guard, in its
present attitude is not in accord with the
military law of Georgia, and should be
made either to obey that law. or cease to
exist as a military organization; and that
the duty devolves upon the governor, as
ommander-in-chief to take the steps nee
essary to bring the question to a cOnclu-
sion. l never did contend that the gov
ernor could repeal a charter, or, by his sole
action, disband a company.
Col. Burke claims that the Gate City
Guard Is an existing military body. acting
under a charter granted by the state in
1859. On Dec IA, 1859, the Gate City Guards
of Atlanta were incorporated with the usu-
al privileges of a corporation they were al
lowed to make and enforce bylaws and
regulatio but It was expressly provided
that such bylaws and regulations should
not be contrary or repugnant to the con-
stitution and laws of this state. Here was
a positive injunction against any rules or
orders which conficted with the laws of
Georgia, present or future. The number OF
men was limited to eighty privates. They
were exempted from all jury duty, patrol
duty and militia duty. further than such
as might be required of them as members
of such corps, and such drills and inspec-
tions as might be ordered by the command
errin-chief. This was plainly a provision
that they were to be liable for such ordi-
nary duties of a military character as
other military bodies in Georgia were sub
jected to, under either the special orders
of the governor, or the general orders emf
-,
tary system. They certainly could not in
sist that they were liable only to such
drills and Inspections as the governor
might particularly order them to perform.
No special privileges whatever of a mill
tary character were conferred which made
their duty lighter than that of other mill
tary companies. They We're exempted
from jury and patrol duty, and this eX-
emption they retain while their charter
exists. They could be disbanded as a mill
tary body and yet preserve their rights
of property as corporators.
1t was provided that after seven years
service they should be exempt from all
militia duty except in cases of insurrec-
ton, invasion, rebellion or war. This ex-
emption plainly referred to the compulsory
militia service then provided for 1t had
no reference to the voluntary military sys-
TEN now in force, where the performance
of duties and the obedience to orders are
voluntarily assumed and cheerfully dis
charged by soldiers. The distinction be-
tween militia and volunteer service is
clearly shown by the act of 1879, and
| amendatory acts. incorporated in the code
of 1882. section 110S (a), and the same ex-
emption from militia duty is inserted. But
even if the Gate City Guard should claim
| that their charter relieved them al its date
from ordinary military service, the same
was subject to modification by the state;
and the act Of 1879 introducing the new
military law, allowed military corps ex-
listing on Oct 16, 1879, to retain only such
special privileges as We're not inconsis-
tent with the provisions of said act and
| expressly repealed all laws inconsistent
with the same. After said act a military
organization in Georgia could not retain
its military character with the privileges
of ignoring the military laws of the state.
1t is, therefore. my very decided opinion
| that the integrity and efficiency of the
| Georgia Volunteers demand a conclusive
and prompt solution of the present status
| of the Gate City Guard. If any competent
| tribunal shall decide that the position
| they assume is in accordance with the law,
no one will acquiesce with better grace
| than myself, though / cannot but expert
! ence grave apprehension of the effect of
] such a decision upon the future of our