But no clause of this section is more liable to objection than the _fourth_, which reads as follows: 'Where there are two or more sons of aged or infirm parents subject to draft, the father, or if he be dead, the mother, may elect which son shall be exempt.' It will be observed that the provision--'dependent upon his labor for support'--is omitted in this clause. Now, to interpret its language by the legal method of construction, by the context, it would seem that such dependence were necessary in order to secure the exemption. For the two clauses immediately preceding exempt 'the only son of a widow or of aged or infirm parent or parents _dependent upon his labor for support_. The two immediately following, exempt 'the brother or father of orphan children under twelve years of age _dependent upon his labor for support_.' That is, _four_ of the five clauses referring strictly to this subject, grant exemption to the applicant only when some one depends upon him for support. Hence it may be presumed, according to an admitted custom of legal interpretation, that in the remaining clause, standing between the other four, the question of dependence, though not expressly _stated_, is clearly _implied_. But an 'opinion,' published by the Provost-Marshal General's Bureau for the guidance of the boards of enrolment, declares that 'the right to this exemption does not rest upon the parents' dependence on the labor of their sons for their support. The law does not contemplate any such dependence.' What is the result of this decision? First, it places the wealthy and independent on the same footing with the indigent and needy, exacting from the one no more service than from the other. Second, it is more lenient toward the wealthy citizen who has several sons liable to draft, than toward the helpless widow who may have but one. Third, it makes a distinction against that family which may have contributed most to the military service. By the 'opinion' just quoted, the only fact to be established by parents electing one of several sons 'subject to draft,' is that they are 'aged or infirm'. When this is done, boards of enrolment must grant the exemption. The parents may live in affluence independent of their children; the sons may all be in the second class except the one elected; they may reside in different districts or States; they may belong to different households: yet, if the same parents, or some indigent widow adjoining them, had but _one_ son 'liable to military duty,' or, having _several_, had sent them all into the army save _one_, that one remaining could not be exempt unless it were proven that they actually depended on him for their support. Why should a helpless widow, having but _one_ son, be required to prove her dependence on him for support in order to have him exempted, when her wealthy neighbor, who has _two_ sons, can have one of them exempted without this dependence?