support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years. " No. 13, "To provide and maintain a navy. " No. 14, "To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces. " It is impossible to imagine a more broad, ample, and unqualified delegation of the whole war power of each State than is here contained, with the solitary limitation of the appropriations to two years. The States not only gave power to raise money for the common defense, to declare war, to raise and support armies (in the plural), to provide and maintain a navy, to govern and regulate both land and naval forces, but they went further and covenanted by the third paragraph of the tents section not "to engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay. " I know of but two modes of raising armies within the Confederate States, viz, voluntary enlistment and draft or conscription. I perceive in the delegation of power to raise armies no restriction as to the modes of procuring troops. I see nothing which confines Congress to one class of men, nor any greater power to receive volunteers than conscripts into its service. I see no limitation by which enlistments are to be received of individuals only, but not of companies or battalions, or of squadrons or regiments. I find no limitation of time of service, but only of duration of appropriation. I discover nothing to confine Congress to waging war within the limits of the Confederacy, nor to prohibit offensive war. In a word, when Congress desires to raise an army and passage a law for that purpose, the solitary question is under the eighteen paragraph, viz, Is the law one that is necessary and proper to execute the power to raise armies? On this point you say: "But did the necessity exist in this case? The conscription act cannot aid the Government in increasing its supply of arms and provisions, but can only enable it to call a largernto the field. The difficulty has never been to get men. The States have already furnished to the Government more than it can arm. " I would have very little difficulty in establishing to your entire satisfaction that the passage of the law was not only necessary, but that it was absolutely indispensable; that numerous regiments of twelve-months' men were on the eve of being disbanded, whose places could not be supplied by new levies in the face of superior numbers of the foe without entailing the most disastrous results; that the position of our armies was so critical as to fill the bosom of every patriot with the liveliest apprehension, and that the provisions of this law were effective in warding off a pressing danger. But I prefer to answer your objection on other and broader grounds. I hold that when a specific power is granted by the Constitution, like that now in question, "to raise armies," Congress is the judge whether the law passed for the purpose of executing that power is "necessary and proper. " It is not enough to say that armies might be raised in other ways, and that therefore this particular way is not "necessary. " The same argument might be used against every mode of raising armies. To each successive mode suggested the objection would be that other modes were practicable, and that therefore the particular mode used was not "necessary. "
The true and only test is to inquire whether the law is indicated and calculated to carry out the object; whether it devises and creates an instrumentality for executing the specific power granted, and if the answer be in the affirmative the law is constitutional. None can doubt that the conscription law is calculated and intended to "raise armies. " It is, therefore, "necessary and proper" for the execution