El Paso herald. (El Paso, Tex.) 1901-1931, 1918-01-07
DRAFT law
To Be VALID
Supreme Court Says Meas
ure Is Constitutional and
Eminently Proper.
CONTINUED From Page One)

Otto and Walter Wangerin. indicted
for falling to register, and sentenced
to serve one year each. The Georgia
case was based on the refusal of the
federal district court to grant a writ
Of habeas corpus TO Albert Jones 3
for refusing to register
Chief Justice whites Opinion.
Chief justice White, in the opinion,
said;
The law, as its title declares. was
intended TO supply temporarily the ill
creased military force which was re-
quired by the existing emergency, the
war, then and now fragrant"
(Here the chief Justice recited the
provisions Of the act and the conten-
tons Of those who attacked its con-
stitutionality.)
The possession Of authority 70 en-
act the statute" said the chief JUS
tice, must be found in the CLAUSES Of
the constitution giving congress
power to declare war and TO raise
and support armies, but no apprOpri-
alton OF money TO that use shall be
for a term longer than two years
and TO make rules for the government
and regulation Of the land and naval
forces
AS the mind cannot conceive an
army without the men to compose II,
on the face OF the constitution the
objection that It does not give power
TO provide for such men would seem
TO be too frivolous for further notice.
Tt is said. however. that since. under
the constitution as originally framed.
state citizenship was primary and
United States citizenship but depend
ent thereon. therefore the power con-
lerred upon congress TO raise armies
was only coterminOus with United
States citizenship and could not be
exerted so as TO cause that citizenship
TO lose its dependent character and
dominate state citizenship
Appeals Deny Power to Congress.
But the proposition simply denies
10 congress the power 70 raise armies
which the constitution gives That
pOwer by the very terms Of the con-
is supreme. Further. il Is
said the right TO provide an army by
calling for volunteer enlistment is not
denied, but IL does not and cannot in
clude the power to exact enforced
service by the citizen This, .
however, but challenges the existence I
OF all power for Eove-nme power
which has no sanction 10 IL and which
therefore can only be exercised and
provided the citizen consents 10 its
exercise is no SUBSTANTIAL sense a
power.
Not RepUgnant to Free Government. I
II j. 4ELa now Ell EIaA
-nOugh This IS ahS-racL-y true il is not f.
s0ncretely so because. as compelled /
service is repugnant 20 a .
rec government. il viii be in conflict
with all the great guarantees of the
constitution as to Individual liberty.
Z must be assumed that the authority
% raise armies was intended 10 be
United 10 the right 10 call an army
ntO existence counting alone upon
he willingness OF the citizen 70 do
lis duty in time Of public need. that
s, IN time OF war. But the premise
u this proposition is so devoid Of
ounuatton that Il leaves not even q
hadow OF ground upon which 20 base
he conclusion.
IT remains only TO consider c0nten-
ions which, while not disputine DOW
u. challenge the act because Of the
epugnaney to the constitution sup
osed to result from some Of its pro
isions.
DispOsinE OF Minor Features. I.
First, we are Of OPINION tnat the
ontentlon that the act IS void as a
elegatlon OF federal power TO state
IIlcials because OF some OF fits adj 7
illustrative features is too wanting =
o merit to require further notice.
Second, We think that the c0rter-
ION that the statute is void because
estng administrative officers with ,
-slslatlve discretion has been SO
ompletely adversely settled as 10 re-
uire reference only 20 some Of the
ecided cases. a like conclusion slsD
dversely disDoses OF a similar cla- m
oncern-ns the comforting Of judicial
over.
NJ @InvOIuntary Servirude.
r inally, as We are unable 10 con
Give upon what theory the exaction
= government from the citizen of the
erIormauce Of his supreme and noble =
uty Of contributing to the defence of |
le rights and honor of the nation as
he result Of q war decls-ed nv ma
7 eat representative BODY Of the peo.
.e can be said to be the imposition 2
! Involuntary servitude in Violation
{ the prohibitions OF the 18th amend =
emit we are constrained to tire con- :
lslon tnat the contention 70 that ef- F..
.ct is refuted by its mere Statement +
lint PLANS PFCTMrNT