Rutland weekly herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1859-1877, 1862-12-11

There is no subject discussed with 10 little
general intelligence, and so great confusion Of
ideas, as that relating TO the Constitutional
functions and duties of the President qaof the
United States. This arises from the fact thai
no discrimination is made between the, powers
Of the President as a civil magistrate, in time
Rpsacc, and his powers as Commander-in-
Chief Of the Army, in time Of war or great
evil commotion. 1t is true that his functions
a. Chief Magistrate are defined and limited in
the Constitution. But not so with regard to
his powers and duties as Commander-in-Ch Chief.
u would have been impossible to limit and de-
hne and fix these in any written constitution
The powers of the President as Commander
in-Chlef are co-extensive with aud similar to
those of the Commander Chief of the armies
under any other government. No Monarch on
the face of the globe possesses more unlimited
range OF power in this regard than does our
President
The civil Office created by the constitution,
the incumbent Of which is called the President
is entirely original with that instrument. Hence
tde necessity of limiting and defining its pow
srs. This is easily done, since it is in the ma
ture of civil powers and duties that they may
DO be defined and limited in advance. They
are to be exercised as an orderly system in the
midst OF order. But the Office of commander
in-chief is not original with the constitution it
has existed in and been recognized by all ma
tons since the earliest period of civilized war
tare. Its functions are to be performed after
disorder has operated to suspend the execution
Of the civil powers of the President, When.
saerefore, war ensues the President looks in
vain into the constitution for the definition or
limitation of Of his powers as COMMANDMENT
chief Of the army. The civil laws are " siIen.
nlthe midst Of arms" In seeking to know his
duties as such commander, which the exigen-
sizes Of war have imposed upon him, he must
isok to the recognized rules of civilized war
fare. Hence it is improper to predicate consti-
Mtlonality Or unconstitutionality of the acts of
me President as commander in chief. Those
acts are lawful or unlawful with reference 10
the laws of war.
We cannot so well serve our readers in the
further calculation Of this subject by any
remarks of our own, as by making the
following extracts from very able article
written by Mr.. G. P. Lowrey, Of New York,
IN reply to Judge Curtis pamphlet, the OBJ
Ject OF which was to question the power of the
President to emancipate the slaves of rebels.
as measure of war. These extracts point out
the jumbo III which most political writers en-
tangle themselves and their readers, in the dis
'sussion of this grave subject. Mr.. Lowrey
says:
" The political situation being such as has
been described, the nation finds itself attacked.
The attack is from within and not from with
out which is the same as to say, not by per-
sons claiming to be injured by any act of bad
neighborhood, but by persons discontinued
with the internal form or administration Of The
governmental idea. The peril is not merely
loss OF territory, or the payment Of tribute to
eonqueror, but absolute privation of national
lille. In such war the commander in chief is
called upon to act; and as has already been
said, his powers are, under the laws Of war, to
be measured by his duties, and his duties bv
the necessities of the occasion. The necessitu
Is to preserve the national life the duty is to
use all requisite mems not forbidden by the
laws OF nations; and the powcr and authority
strike their roots deep into the first maxi m Of
human language, self preservation is the first
law Of nature"
He next cites the rights of war:
The laws and rights of war which bslonp
to the nation, and are for our use temporarily !
vested in the commander in-chief, are declared
~ Burlamqui Prin of Nat. and Pol Law. |
vol. II, Oh. 81, who cites Grotus, to be sub |
stantially contained in the following rules -
First-Everything which has a connection
morally necessary to the end or object OF the
War 10 permitted. For it would be to no pur- /
pose TO have right to do a thing if we could |
not make use of the necessary means to bring
It il about. Second-The right we have
against our enemy, and which we pursue by
arms, ought not to be considered only with
respecs to such fresh causes as NAV arise dur
ng It's progress. Third-That a great many
'alngs otherwise unlawful are yet permitted.
because they are inevitable consequences of
var, and are supposed to happen contrary to
our intention"
Also, ne quotes certain maxims arising out
If these rights and laws, as for instance: a
- For the purpose Of defence nation is
tss 70 use against the enemy violence and ter
ror, which are the proper characteristics of