The Hancock Jeffersonian. [volume] (Findlay, Ohio) 1857-1870, 1862-11-14
Judge Curtis,s view Of the Executive
Power--what Pref. Parsons Thinks


Judge Curtis,s visw Of the Execut;v,
! Power--what Pref. Parsons Think
Of IT,
! There are three questions concern
ing the Presidents EN- ancipatior
Proclamation. One -Has he q
constitutional power to issoe 1t ss Q
civil. or administrative acti The
second--Was tt expedieDt3 The
third-Hss he a constitutional pow
er, as Commander. in.O Ohief, 10 issue
it, at this time, as q military ac,2
These questions are perfectly dis
ttinct. One Of the most common
snd fruitful causes ofterror upon al
snbiects is the minsling Of question.
which are distinct in themselves, but
go near each other that they confuse
each other.
Judge Curtis mingles these ques
tions so entirely, that no study o.
his pamphlet enables me to see
clearly rs to much OF HE argument
npon which OF these questions il 10
intended to bear.
Let us separate these questions.
am sure that the President has
no power to emancipa,e a single
slave, as a civil, political or admin
istrative act.
Was it expedientg leave this
question to the President. For he
is honest, he is capable; he has con
sidered Tho question long, carefully
and painfully, and in all the re!a.
tions in which it can present itself.
However wise may be. or Judge
Curtis may be, on this subject the
President is wiser, or all rules Of
probability fail.
As to the remaining question,
have not the slightest doubt Of his
constitutional power, as Commander
IN Chief, to Issue this proclamation
as military act.
II Halleck, when Sefore Corinth,
might have sent a force a hundred
miles to catch and bring into HE
lines hundred negroes with the
wagons. horses and provisions they
we're bringing into Beauregsrd, the
President and Commander in Chief,
sitting in the center with wider
views, wider necessities, and wider
rights to meet tn SO necessities, NAV
II he can, prevent the whole mass OF
slaves from labo.ing to feed the re-
bcllion. He may. il he can, by the
danger of insurrcction, or OF starva.
tlon, or OF loss ofproperlv, disheart.
en- the rebels and drive their armies
home.
To say otherwise would be to sav
that he might strike at rebellion
bnt hc must be careful not to strike
away its corner stone.
Can he do it in factl This uues
tinn touches the expediency OF the
measure, and this | .eave to him.
But it does not touch his military
right TO threaten it and do it if he
can.
Judge Curtis speaks much and
elcquent'y OF the Presidents right
to infict penalty and punishment" )"
and the rights to the rebels to the
protection of the law.
Rebellion has no rights. If re.
belIion means anything it means the
renunciation and destruction OF all
law. And therefore it is accursed
before God and man.
No rebel has any right a regard
to which shonld weaken or Obstruct
any military measure needed to sub
due the rebellion.
Judge Curtis argument would
give the Constitution and the law tC
the rebels, as their sword to smite
and their shield to save them, and
leave it TO us only a ie,ter.
Then he tells Us the innocen,
must suffer with the guilty. This is
true and it is sad. But when the
mingled fire and hail Of Gods ven
geance run along the ground, they
pursne no devious path that they
may leave the homes of tho innocen,
unharmed; for when national sins
bring national calami,ics, the limo
cent suffer with the guilty. This
may be one OF the mysteries OF Prov
idence; it is at all events a fact
And what has been will be.
Il Boston Daily Adue,tiser.