New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1861-09-18
Ex POST PACTO.

As the seeming disagreement between the order
Of the President and the proclamation Of Gen.
Fremont is still subject of popular discussion,
we recur 70 il again, were it only to enforce
our view Of it, that the disagreement ia more
seeming than real as TO the main point at issue.
There is nothing in Mr.. Lincolns order that
justifes us in forming any opinion as TO his views
upon the power Of the Government over the cues
ton of Slavery under martial law. The question
with the President was simply whether tie time
had come in Missouri TO 60 beyond the mere let
ter of the statute, and declare that State in q
condition when the commanding General, by pro-
claimng martial law, should assume that power
over life, liberty aud property which are the very
essence of such authority. Tie assumption OF
Gen. Fremont was that that extreme point was
reached when his duty 10 the whole people re-
quired that he should exercise such a power 10
restrain the unbounded license existing in that
region, aud which had set at defiance all civil
law, was outragiDg every inst@Iton OF peaceful
society and was beyond all dictates Of humanity.
It is to be presumed OF course, that the Presi.
dent did not commit the mistake Of supposing that
Of Congress, though he has since pointed to the
law as the extent TO which he thinks it prudent,
at present, to go.
Another question, however, Of hardly less
Importance 10 raised by the Presidents order.
Martial law, so long as it exists, and when pro-
claimed by sufficient authority, is tho supreme
law. Gen. Fremont having proclaimed it in the
district over which he held military rule, was il
not of right the law so long as it existed Does
the Presidents order to rescnd it in given
case undo itS operation while it was the rule 2
Were persons held as slaves by rebels, enamel.
pated by the proclamation OF Gen. Fremont of
August 81 , and was the proclamation, so far as
it relates to them, in force till rescinded by the
order of tie President dated Sept. IL Has
the order q retrospective as well as prospect
i've action Does il render imperative the mar.
tal law, so far as slaves are concerned, from
the 3lst of August to the 18th Of September
and restore to bondage those who had been
emancipated by the proclamation Of the com
mandng General Has the President the power
to reduce people ~ slavery whose freedom
was given them by power perfectly legitimate
so long as it lasted 1t is very clear that under
the order slaves cannot now, or until the pro.
mitigation Of some new DEGREES be freed in Mis-.
souri, except in accordance with the Act Of Con-
fscatiOn. But the proclamation, by authority Of
martial law went beyond tho act and emancipated
the slaves of all rebels. Was the proclamation
in force or not from the 3lst of August till the
Ilth of September, and can those VINO took the
benefit of it, or who can DO shown 10 have been
the property of rebels during that period, be le-
galy held as slaves
These questions are grave ones, and may have
important consequences. Suppose the President
by virtue Of his power as COMMANDMENT Chief
had revoked altogether Gen. FremOnts procla-
nation. If, in the meantime, before the order
of revocation was promulgated, Gen. Fremont or
bis Provost Marshal bad had rebel shot by
martial law, or, through any of his officers, had
confscated rebel property in merchandise or
money are they liable to criminal or civil
for such action Or is the plea that
martial law had been proclaimed by legitimate
authority, and had not been resciuded By
CHER authority, sufficient justification Do not
the cases proceed pari pasSn and whatever is
awful in the one case become equally lawful in
he other If persons held to service, but eman.
,ipated by the proclamation of Gen. Fremont,
ire restored to slavery by the Presidents order,
then tho same principle must apply to other