Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1862-11-07
distinguished Legal Opinion.

The following is the most concise and at
the same time conclusive opinion upon the
Emancipation Proclamation that has been
published. The reputation of its author as
one of the leading jurists Of the country,
will carry great weight with it. 1t was
written TO rcfute some errors that had been
published in pamphlet by Judge Curtis
There are three questions concerning the
Presidents Emancipation Proclamation. -
One, has he constitutional power to issue
il as a civil, political, or administrative act
The second, was it exyedient? The third
has he constitutional power as Commander
in.Chief to issue it at this time, as military
act?
The questions are perfectly distinct. One
of the most common and most fruitful causes
of error upon all subjects, is the mnglng of
questions which are distinct in themselves.
but so near each other that they confuse each
other
Let us separate these questions.
| am sure that the President has no power
70 emancipate single slave, Us n civil, po.
ltical or administrative act.
Was it expcdient2 leave this question to
the President. For be is honest, he is capa-
bic +; he has considered the question long
carefully and painfully, and in all relations
in which it can present itself. However wise
may be, or Judge Curtis may be, on this
subject, the President must be wiser, or all
rules of probability fail.
As to the remaining question, | have not
the slightest doubt of his constitutional
power as Gommander-inC Chief, to issue TIN.
PROCLAMATION as a military act.
If llallcck, when before CoFinth, might
baye sent force a hundred miles to catch
and bring into his lines hundred negroes
with the wagons. horses, and provisions they
were bringing TO Bcaurcsard, the Pre- dent
and Csmmanderin-Ch Chief, sitting In the cen
tire, with wider views, wider necessities. NAV
it he can. prevent the whole mass of slaves
from lab0rlrg to fed the rebellion. lie may
If he can, by the danger OF insurroetion, or
starvation, or OF loss OF property, dishearten
the rebels and drive their armies home.
To say otherwise would be 10 say that he
might strike Mt rebellion, but must be care
full not to strike away its cornerstone.
Can be do in fact ? This question touches
the expcdlency oil the measure, and this
leave to him But 1t does not touch hi.
military right 70 hrea''a it, and DO it il he
can.
NHtAAs ~ iah' u 49, w 'r''N =
Of the President : right 10 inniei penalty
and punishment and the rights Of tn
rebels to the protection Of the law.
Rebellion has np rights II rebellion
means anything it means the remuneration
aud destruction Of all law. Aud therefore
i, Is accursed before God and man.
No rebel has any right regard to which
should weaken or ohstruct any military
measure needed to subduc tho rebellion.
Judge Curtis's argument would give the
Constitution aud the law to the rebel, a
their sword to smite with aud thsir shield L
save them. and leave it 10 ia only As i trttcr
Then he tells Us the innocent must s4if
with the guilty This IS true, aud Il Is sal
But when the mingled tra aad ha,i d
Coils vengeance ran alonS thn ground, tn J
pursue no devious Iath that they may feay
the homes of the innocent uaharmcI tur
when national sins bring national calamtir-
the innocent snfFrr with tie guilty TtH-
may he one OF the mysteries # Providence
i, Is. at all events, fact. AMI wha; Ia.
been will he. TBEorn,Lrs PAS ~.
Cduabr,d3c.