Year: 1864

recently, in regard to the late act of Congress,
placing the principals of substitutes in the army,
in defiance of its plighted faith and solemn con-
tract One of the most extraordinary articles
which have yet seen On this subject, appeared in
the last Fayetteville Observer, over the signature
of Richmond County," and to which, with your
permission, will submit some remarks in reply,
through tho columns of your widely circulated
paper. !


The O6serUer!s correspondent frankly admits,
that the Constitution confers no power upon Con-
gress to impair the obligation of contracts but ar
CUES to prove that the government has never en-
tered into any contract with these men, but that
their claim to exemption rests not upon a con-
tract proper within the constitutional meaning of
She term, but upon privilege, or an indulgence;'
and that such should be recalled in a case of gov
ernmental life or death-and says the Courts must
so decide, counter to their own decisions in.
volVing the same principles.


On both of these points | take issue with him,
and shall endeavor to prove, frst-that the gov
'ernment, through its authorized agents, did make
a contract with these men, dlscharging them from
the army for three years, or during the war, for
consideration and, secondly-that the decisions
quoted by him do not sustain him in his views on
this question.


admit, that in one sense of the word, the law
allowing substitutes does confer priUilege, "
the privilege of exempting yourself from the mill
tary service through d contract with the govern
ment The moment substitute is accepted and
the principal is discharged, it becomes privilege
accepted and a contract executed. Every discharge
sets forth, that the principal, having furnished
able bodied man as substitute, is in consideration
thereof discharged from the army for three years.
or the war. A stronger evidence of a contract it
would be difficult to conceive What is a con-
tractP 1t is an agreement between two or more
parties; mutual promise upon lawful considera-
ton which binds the parties to performance; a.
bargain; stipulation. Is here. not an agreement
between the two parties? The principal agrees to
furnish an aole bodied man as a substitute, and of
this the government itself is to be the Judge In
consideration of this the government agrees to
empt him from military service for three years, or
the war. The substitute is examined by the gov
ernment Surgeons, pronounced able and sound, is
accepted, and the principal discharged. If this is
not contract executed know not what IS. 1t is
an agreement between two parties; it is mutual
promise upon a lawful consideration which binds
the parties to performance; 1t is bargain; it is
a stipulation, from which accrues vested rights.


You sell man your horse, and in consideration
of the value received he gives you his note for the
purchase money, payable the next week. Here he
contracts with you to pay you at given time just
as the government contracts to exempt the prlnci-
pals of substitutes for fixed length of time; but
the Legislature passes a stay-law voiding the con-
tract Sy extending the time Of payment just as the
of the Confederate Congress vods this by short
ening the period of exemption. What does Rich
mond County" suppose the Courts would say
about the constitutionality of such law? Such a.
law has twice been passed by the Legislature of
North. Carolina-in 1913, and in lS6l-and in both.
cases the Supreme Court decided that the law was
unconstitutional, upon the express ground that it
"impaired the obligation of cOntrdcts." The o.
SsrUer'8 correspondent will search q long time, be-
fore he finds case more in point than this.


But lido not believe there: Is much analogy be-
tween the case of the Fayetteville Bank and the
present Suppose the bonus paid by the Bank for


its charter to constitute a contract What did the
Legislature dor Dbl at one fell swoop sweep away
all the Uested rights of the corporation? Certainly
not 1t simply imposed some restrictions upon it
for the public good; enforced some regulations for
the benefit of the community. This the Supreme
Court held that it had the right to do but no one
knows better than the Observers correspondent,
that if the Legislature had deprived the corporation
of all its vested rights; had annulled its charter
the Supreme Court would have decided THAI the act
was unconstitutional and void. Did Congress SIM
ply attempt regulation or an GRTihit1t1on OF the
rights vested2 Upon this question hinges the point
of analogy to bis Bank cases. - ~ s'r.1,


But let Us view the question inits morakaspect. A
needs the services of an able bodied man for three
years. B, in consideration of a sum Of money to
him in hand paid, agrees to become AS servant for
that length of time. A accepts of the proposition,
and the contract is reduced to writing and made
binding by the payment of the consideration. But
no sooner does B bind the bargain than he sees
where he could have done much better. In order
to enable him to do this, agrees to take his place
as a servant of A for specified sum of money. A
agrees to the arrangement and enters into second
contract with B, in which he discharges him from
his service in consideration of his having furnished
another able bodied hand in the person Of C. After
a short time he says to B, l have work enough for
two hands and must have them, and attempts to
force him back into his service without dlscharging
O. or refunding him any tart of the money paid for
Cs services, but being private individual he can
not override law and justice with as much ease as
the government can, and therefore fails. But the
very attempt is an act of such moral tnrpitude as
to shock all the better feelings Of humanity. Yet
this is precisely what the government is doing.


The same number of the Observer that contained
this article also contained An able article from a
highly respectable religious paper, the N. O. CHRIS


tian Allocate, expressing the opinion that all oi
our calamities merited by US in consequences o


the sins of our people and urging them TO put away


their SINS 1t also tells US that i will not do mere


" to rely upon the right and justice Of our cause


that the history Of the world shows that every just


cause is not suceessfol-that they are sometime
trampled down by the iron heel of oppreSsion-tha


while God is on the side Of the righteous cause, A
is not on the side of the aorOlg dOer-and that t
merit success, we must not only hare right on on


side, but that we must do right ourselves. Thi


reasoning struck me with some force, but it occur


red to me that our peoplewere not likely to LmproV


in that atrespectin the face of such garng and shane


less violations of contracts of good faith on the par


of the government. 1nstes d Of affording an exam


pie to our people to inducs them todo right, man


of the acts of the govern ment tend greatly to d.
a.. moralize them and this is the more strikingly S


that the government proeSses to rely upon the goo


Providence of God, and often invokes the prayer
of the people. Before ut announces another day {


fasting and prayer let IL retrace its steps, observe
! its obligations, and punctously keep faith with


subjects, and it can wit IN much more propriety il


woke the blessings Of God upon our country an
/ our cause a PLAIN FARMER.