Third. A pro rata distribution of quotas to make up for losses is in violation of law, because the act provides that accounts shall be kept with sub-districts, and each locality must be required to furnish its own quota.
Take, for example, the case alluded to by His Excellency, the loss of the regiment at Fort Fisher: Suppose that regiment to have been raised at Harrisburg, and the men credited to the wards of that city, and that it had been three months in service, the city of Harrisburg would be entitled to three moths" credit; whereas if the regiment had not participated in that assault the city might have received credit for three years of service, and as the law requires that each subdistrict must fill its own quota, it would be in violation of law to require any other locality than the city of Harrisburg to replace these men; and the earnestness with which His Excellency appeals to the President to see to it that his subordinates carefully administer the law, induces the belief that Governor Curtin would not overlook its violation in an instance so manifest as this would be.
It is submitted that His Excellency's plan of only allowing the credit for time actually served, and requiring the locality to make up the deficiency by new men, would be more destructive to the industrial population of these localities than the one adopted by the War Department.
His Excellency alleges that as the present call is made to make up deficiencies under the call of July for 500,000 men, the present quota is for more than the amount which the State was deficient under that call.
In reply to this it is to be understood that while the call of July did not put 500,000 men in the Army, it was, nevertheless, filed either by men or credits for Navy and Army enlistments, prior to that call. The present call is to obtain 300,000 men, because the former had failed to produce the number of men required, and as each district was required, under the call of July 18, to fill the quota found to be due after receiving its share of credit, a complete settlement was made with all the districts and its surplus, where surplus existed, was brought forward as a credit on th which the present quota is affected by the previous call is by the periods of service for which the men enlisted under that call, and the excess of years of service which any locality may have had over the amount required under that call.
The second point made by His Excellency's communication is, that so much of the twelfth section of the act of March 3, 1863, as requires the President to take into consideration the periods of service, as well as the number of men furnished by the several localities, is repealed by the act of February 24, 1864.
The answer to this is that the second section of the act of February 24, 1864, repeals no part of the act of March 3, 1863, either in terms or by implication; it simply extends the application of the twelfth section of the act of March 3, 1863, so far as to require the President to apportion the quotas to sub-districts as well as to districts.
The act of February 24, 1864, does not in terms repeal any portion of the act of March 3, 1864, does it provides in the twenty-seventh section that so much of the act approved March 3, 1863, as may be inconsistent with the provisions of the act of February 24, 1864, is repealed.
The whole question, then, depends upon the fact as to whether the twelfth section of the act of March 3, 1863, which provides that