in assigning the quotas to districts the President shall take into consideration the periods of service as well as the number of men previously furnished, is inconsistent with the provisions of the second section of the act of February 24, 1864, which provides that the quotas of districts shall be apportioned to sub-districts in proportion to the number of men resident therein liable to render military service, taking into account, as far as practicable, the number previously furnished therefrom.
A repealing statute is to be strictly construed, particularly where injustice would follow the repeal.
It is difficult to perceive why, if it were just and proper to estimate the amount of service furnished by the different localities from the beginning of the war up to March 3, 1863, when troops were raised by voluntary contribution, it is not just and proper to estimate the amount of service furnished from March 3, 1863, to January 1, 1865, when men are forced into the service by conscription, particularly when the faith of the Government is pledged in the latter instance to give credit according to the number of years of service furnished.
It was not supposed that it would be seriously claimed that a district which had filled its quota with one-year's men was entitled to the same amount of credit as an equal district which had furnished a like quota of three-years" men.
Take an example. The State of Pennsylvania furnished twenty regiments of nine-months" men. These twenty regiments on entering the service mustered 16,849 men. At the expiration of their term of service they numbered 14,353. That number of men was restored to the "industrial population" of the State.
Take the case of twenty three-years" regiments from the State of Ohio, mustering in the aggregate 16,000 men. According to His Excellency's proposition, which he will, of course, permit us to adopt, these twenty regiments will give to the service the first year 60 per cent. (9,600), the second year one-half of the residue; but how long the remainder will last is not stated. However, according to His Excellency's estimate, or what he is pleased to term the "morally certain limit of actual service," in contradistinction to the "visionary system" of the War Department, at the end of the second year the State has lost 12,800 men, leaving 3,200 to begin the campaign of the third year. How many men would be restored to the "industrial population" of Ohio at the close of the third year at this ratio of loss is not difficult to determine, and yet His Excellency would be of opinion that in such a case the claim of Pennsylvania for credit for her a nine-months" men would be equal to that of Ohio for her three-years" men.
It is therefore fair to assume that it was not the intention of Congress to pass a repealing act which would work such injustice and accomplish no useful purpose. Shortly after the call of December 19, in order that the States and districts might know what would be the approximate quotas under that call so that recruiting might commence at once, quotas were apportioned to the several districts throughout the United States from the data and information then in the possession of the War Department.
Strenuous efforts were being made to correct the enrollment and obtain accurate reports of the years of service furnished under the previous call. The basis upon which the approximate quotas (dated December 24) were made up was upon the enrollment as it stood November 30, and the reports of men and years of service furnished up to that date. The terms of service of the naval enlistments credited to the State of Pennsylvania, amounting to several thousands, were