The Portland daily press., 1862-11-03
Distinguished Legal Opinion.

The following is the most concise and at the
same time conclusive opinion upon the Enan-
cipation Proclamation that has been published.
The reputation of its author as one of the lead
ing jurists OF the country, will carry great
weight with it. 1t was written to refute 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 it
civil, political, or administrative act? The
second was it expedient? The third, has he
constitutional power as Commander-in-Ch Chief
to issue it at this time, as military act?
These questions are perfectly distinct. One
of the most common and most fruitful causes
of error upon all subjects, is the mngling 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
to emancipate single slave, as a civil, polit-
cal or administrative act.
Was it expedient? l leave this question to
the President. For he is honest, he is capa-
BILE; he has considered the question long, care
fully and painfully, and in all the relations in
which it can present ITSELF However wise |
may be, or Judge Curtis may be, on this sub
ject, 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 Comnander-in-Chief, to issue this proca-
nation as a military act.
Ii Haeck, when before Corinth, might have
sent force hundred miles TO catch and bring
into his lines hundred negroes with the wa
gons, horses, and provisions they were bring
ing to Beauregard, the President and Com
mander-in-C Chief, sitting in the centre, with
wider views, wider necessities, may if he eau,
prevent the whole mass OF slaves from laboring
to feed the rebellion. He may, if he can, by
the danger OF insurrecton, or starvation, or of
loss OF property, dishearten the rebels and
drive their armies home.
To say otherwise would be to say that he
might strike at rebellion, but must BE- careful
not to strike away its cornerstone.
Can he do it in fact? This question touches
the eXpediency Of the measure, and this leave
to him. But it does not touch his military
right to threaten it, and do it if he can.
Judge Curtis speaks much and eloquently
of the Presidents right TO intlict penalty and
punishment" and the rights of the rebels to
the protection OF the law.
Rebellion has no rights. If rebellion means
anything it means the remuneration and des-
tructon of all law. And therefore it is accurs-
ed before God and man.
No rebel has any right, regard to which
should weaken or obstruct any military meas
ure needed TO subdue the rebellion.
Judge Curtiss argument would give the
Constitution and the law to the rebels, as their
sword to smite with and their shield to save
them, and leave it to us only as fetter.
Then he tells us the innocent must suffer
with the guilty. This is true, and it is sad
But when the mingled fire and hail of Gods
vengence run along the ground, they pursue
no devious path that they may leave the homes
of the innocent unharmed; for when national
sins bring national calamites. the innocent
suffer with the guilty. This may be one of the
mysteries of Providence: it is, at all events, a
fact And what has been will be.
Cambridge. THEoPHILUs PARSONS.