Atlanta semi-weekly journal. (Atlanta, Ga.) 1898-1920, 1917-07-17
WeII-KnoWn JuriSt, at Request
of The Journal, Gives Ex-
hauStive Analysis of Meas
IRE and State Laws

not even room to contest it's constitution
ality, for the simple reason that the su
preme court of the states already ha.
settled 1t.
This is stated on the authority o
Judge Spencer r. Atkinson, of Atlanta
prominent attorney, former justice of tn
state supreme court and at present I
member of the Georgia house of repre-
sentatives.
Judge Atkinson bases his opinion OIL
the fact that during the Civil war, wheI
the Confederate states raised armies b!
conscription, the authority to do so wa:
questioned in Georgia and the supreme
court of Georgia then upheld the author
ity with a decision quoting the language
of the Confederate constitution, the ex
act language written today in the con
stitution Of the United States, THE con
gress shall have power to raise armies.
I'm my opinion" declares Judge At
kinson, there IS no ground upon which
any person can call in question tn,
validity of the act recently passed b!
the federal congress. Least of all :!
there any reason for a citizen of Geor
gia to doubt the validity of the gran
of power which was construed by th
supreme court of the state and ha:
stood unquestioned for above half
century"
Judge Atkinson's opinion In full, wri.
ten by him at the request of The Jour
nal, follows:
To those who doubt all things a
doubt may arise as to the validity
of this Consumption act, but to those
of us who have considered the ques-
tion thoroughly and speak advis-
eddy, to those of us who have
Waiuhad TIM daliuara of
of last resort where such questions
have been heretofore considered, no
>such doubt arises. Indeed, there is
no room for the discussion of this
question in Georgia. Whatever
opinions may be held elsewhere, the
question is not debatable here. 1t
has been settled years ago. AS we
lawyers express II, the whole ques-
ton is res judicata." and has been
so far back as the year 1862.
1t will be remembered that dur
ing the Civil war the Confederate
congress had occasion to resort to
the same process of CONSUMPTION.
not to say selective draft, as is be-
ing employed now In raising armies
for the public defense. There were
people then. as there are now, who
seemed to believe, or rather pro-
fessed to believe, that there was a
doubt as to the power of the Con-
federate states to raise armies by
CONSUMPTION.
The acts passed by the Confed-
crate congress for that purpose
were directly called in question:
and. in decisions rendered thereon
by the supreme court Of this state,
and by three judges whose opinions
are outstanding and pre-eminent iu-
sofar as ability is concerned, they
were expressly upheld. These
judges were Hon. Joseph Henry
Lumpkin, Hon. Richard F. Lyon and
Hon. Charles J. Jenkins Hon
Charles J. Jenkins was subsequent
ly the governor of the state and
was the presiding officer of the
constitutional convention which as
sembled in 1877 to frame the con-
stitution of the state under which
we now live. 1t is needless to speak
of the pre-eminent ability of the
other two judges. Reference is
made 10 Judge Jenkins only be-
cause of the fact that he was
the organ of the court in writing
the opinion to which we will here
after refer.
Case of Jeffers.
In 1862. Aso o. letters was con-
scripted under a conscription act
passed by the Confederate congress,
John Fair being the enrolling Of
ficer under whose direction the con-
scription took place. LETTERS sued
out a writ of habeas corpus, seek
ing his release upon the broad
ground that the act of the Con-
federate congress-. which was in
principle exactly the counterpart
of the CONSUMPTION act now in ques-
ton, was unconstitutional in that
under the constitution OF the Con-
federate states there was no au
thority to conscript a citizen of
Georgia into the service of the Con-
federate states. The supreme court,
to which the case finally went upon
writ of error, held, after most ma
ture elaboration. that the act was
constitutional and was within the
competency of the Confederate con-
gress TO enact. This case will be
found reported in the Thirty-third
Georgia, page 347.
In this case the contention was
that the Confederate congress had
no power to raise armies by COM
pulsion. but was wholly dependent
for a military force upon the volun-
tary enlistment of men. Answer
ing this contention, the supreme
court of the state of Georgia quoted
the language of the Confederate
constitution, which contained a
grant to congress expressed In the
following words THE congress
shall have power to raise armies"
Referring to the constitution of
the United States, Article l, Sec
ton S, Paragraph IL, we find: The
congress shall have power to raise
and support armies" In the pre-
ceding paragraph IT is. declared:
Congress shall have power to de-
clare war"
The identical language in the
constitution of the United States
was the language used in the con-
stitution of the Confederate States
and was the language construed
by the supreme court of Georgia
in the case above cited The su-
preme court of Georgia held that
the Confederate congress had
power. under the grant of power re-
ferred 10 above to declare war, to
raise armies. and to employ such
means as might be needful in their
support and maintenance to carry
to a successful conclusion the prose-
cution of the war then in progress.
AGAIN REAFFIRMED.
Following this, in the case of
Jones VS.. Warren. saith Ga, page