Let us now put this question to a practical test. The President, under the authority of the law of July 17, has called for a draft of 300,000 men from the militia of the loyal States. The men so drafted are to be organized into regiments by the several States and mustered into the service of the United States by regiments as organized and officered by the States respectively. What is to be done with these militia regiments when so mustered into the service of the United States? The law contemplates that they are to be used the same as any other troops in the United States, and to be assigned to brigades, divisions, and army corps under regular or volunteer commanders legally appointed by the President of the United States. But if State militia can be commanded only by officers appointed bye twenty or thirty separate and independent organizations which cannot be made to act in conjunction, and which are bound to obey only the orders of the officers appointed by their own State. Could any one imagine a more perfect state of military anarchy? Troops in the service of the United States, paid and subsisted by the United States, and yet not "governed" or commanded by the United States! Such a construction of the Constitution opens to us the shortest possible road to dissolution and anarchy. I have no doubt that the practice of the Government in regard to the militia in the service of the United States is in perfect accordance with the constitutional provision referred to, and that a battery, battalion, or regiment of militia, when mustered into service, can be commanded by any officer of proper rank appointed by the United States.

In regard to rank, the Army Regulations are very specific. Paragraph 9 provides that officers commissioned by the United States rank officers of like grade commissioned by a State.

Adopting this view of the general question, we will now examine how far the terms of the authority given by the President to the Governor of Missouri to raise militia for the service of the United States excepts such forces from the general rule of command while in such service. This authority does not prescribe how this militia force was to be received into the service of the United States; but it was in fact under the orders of the War Department, received by companies and regiments, and when four regiments were received, the Governor appointed a brigadier- general and brigade staff officers. It seems to have been the intention that when these troops were brigaded they should have their own brigade commanders, and also that they should be subject to the general command only of the commander of that department. But is also seems to have been understood that this militia force might be used in other ways than as separate and distinct brigades and regiments, and that the exigencies of the service might require parts of it to serve in conjunction with other troops when the militia officers were to be commanded by U. S. officers of the same grade. In fact, this militia force has never served in the field by brigades, but by regiments and companies, or detachments, and where they act in a district, or at a post,or in campaign "in conjunction" with other troops, they must be commanded by the officer highest in rank, whether he be a militia officer or not.

But you draw a distinction between a general of the Regular Army and of volunteers in regard to his right to command of the Missouri militia when acting in conjunction with other troops. I do not think such a distinction was intended by the President's order, both regulars and volunteers being component parts of the Army. If not so intended, it could not be admitted on the general rule as to command.