The Portland daily press., 1862-09-27
John Quincy Adams on the Powers of the
Federal Government.

Federal Government.
In the Advertiser of Sept oath, in an article
showing "the difference between using and
abotishing slavery in suppressing the rebel
lion" is the following proposition:
Both in a war with foreign powers, and no
less in one against rebellion Ia u state, the
Federal Governments highest and chiefest
duty is, to preserve each state oil its institu-
tiors, and all its property, and all the property
of its citizens to the utmost ability of the
Federal Government. There can be no such
thing as a military necessity, on the part OF
the Federal Government, for destroying any
state constitution, or any state iustitution,&c
The doctrine here laid down in relation to
the rights and powers of the Faderal Govern
ment, and their limitations even when assail-
ed by state in armed rebellion, is mere as
sumption on the part of the newly-installed
editor of the Advertiser, without one word of
argument in its support. Having laid down
his broad propositions, and defined the limita-
tions of the government equally in foreign
and a civil war, and having made the broad,
startling assertion that THERE CAN BE NO
SUCH A THING AS A MILITARY Ne
CESSITY' for the Federal Government to
destroy any state institution, the editor of the
Advertiser proceeds to quote authorities, and
to this end he refers to an occurrence during
the war with England, in 1sl2-l5, in which
British naval officer issued proclamation, un-
derstood to be proclamation of freedom to
the slaves of the South He quotes John @.
Adams, not only as minister to London but al
so subsequently as Secretary of State under
.l,.t -,t;s
had no lawful authority to give freedom to
slaves belonging to citizens of the United
States. Mr.. Adams is also quoted in his let
tiers to our Minister to France, to similar eff
feet. The conclusion that Mr. Smith of the
Advertiser draws from his quotations from
Mr.. Adams, is set forth as follows:
The whole theory, then, of proclaimine free
dom TO the slaves in the rebel states is against
the acknowledged rules -of civilized warfare.
And no act of Congress, and judgment of the
Executive can impress it with the virtue of
military necessity.
If Mr.. Adams is quoted correctly by the Ad-
vertiser-and we raise no question on this
point-what does it prove? Simply this: that
Great Britain, having in war despoedour cit
zens of a portion of their property, and having
Ito quote the Advertiser-"in the treaty of
peace stipulated that all places taken by either
party should be restored, without carrying
away any public property captured in such
place, or any stdces or other private proper
ty,'n and having Notwithstanding this treaty,
scarried away number ofnegro slaves, some
captured in war and some fugitives TO the
British lines" Mr.. Adams, as the accredited
agent and attorney ofhs government made a
demand for indemnity for this unsurrendered
property of a portion of his constituents
property which the British government had
solemnly stipulated to give up, or not TO Scar
ry away,'-and in urging his claim and in pros
ecuting his suit Mr.. A. used the language at
tributed to him in the Advertiser.
But did Mr. Addms intend 10 sanction
SUCH A CONCLUSION as the Adrertiser
has dra,cn from his language? Happily for
correct answer to this question Mr.. Adams
has left himself on record,on the precise point
at issue. And so plain, so unamhiguous, so
unmistakable is his language, that we need on
ly quote it. as comment could tend only to con-
fuse what is, in its naked simplicity, perfectly
plain and ineligible.
.t71n his speech on the Joint Resolution for
distributing rations to the distressed fugitiyes
from Indian Hostilities, made May 25, 1885,
John Quincy Adams said:
In the authority given to Congress by the
Constitution of the United States to declare
war, all the powers incident To war are by
necessary implication, conferred upon the gov
aernment Of the United States. Now the pow
ers incident to war are divided, not from their
internal municipal source, but from the laws
and usages of nations. These are
in the authority of Congress and of the Execu-
tive, two classes OF powers, altogether differ
ent in their nature, and often incompatible
with each other-the war power and the peace
power. The peace power is limited by regu-
lations, and restricted by provisions prescribed
within the Constitution itself. THE WAR
POWER is LIMITED ONLY BY THE
LAWS AND USAGES OF NATIONS.
This poweris tremendous; IL is strict
iy constitutional; but IL breaks dotn ereru
barrier so dnriously erected for the protec-
ton OF LIBERTY, OF PROPERTY AND
OF LIFE.
In his speech on War with Great Britain and
Mexico, April, IA and Is, 1912, Mr. Adams
said:
.s-e The pretensions of gentlemen To the sancti-
ty OF their municipal institutions under state
of actual invasion, and ofdctual,rdr, ,WHETH-
ER 5 ERL Z, CIVIL OR FOREIGN. is
wholly unfounded, and the latrs of tcdr do In
all such cases take the precedence lay this
down as the law of nations.
say that military authority takes, for the
time, the place of all municipal institutions,
and stdrery among the rest and that under
that state of things, SO far from its being true
that the States where slavery exists have the
exclusive management of the subject, not only
the President Of the United States. but the
commander OF the army, HAS THE POWER TO
ORDER THE UNIVERSAL EAiANCIPA-
aT1ON OF THE SLAVES.
1t is rule OF the courts, we believe, that no
attorney shall impeach or discredit his own
witnesses, The editor Of the Advertiser, as
the attorney for the slave institution. having
introduced SO illustrious witness as John
Quincy Adams, he will be obliged to admit
the full weight of the testimony brought out
on the cross-examination. And having ap-
pealed to Mr.. Adams and to him alone to show
that the Federal Government has no power to
destroy any institution of rebellious State,
and his own witness having explicitly declared
that, not the President only but that any
1. Commanding General, in time of war, has full
power to proclaim the emancipation of the
slaves, we don't see but his whole article in
yesterdays paper, designed TO show that the
President has yielded to improper Influences