The Cadiz Democratic sentinel. [volume] (Cadiz, Ohio) 1854-1864, 1862-11-12
The Military Power OF The Pres
idenN

The Mifftnry Power OF The Pres
ideRt.
An. able and lucid exposition Of this,
subject has been lately presented to
the public in pamphlet written by
Hon. Benjamin r. Curtis, of Bosten,
late judge of the U S. Supreme Court,
and the author Of the celebrated dis
senting opinion it the Dred Scott case
from which we give liberal extsNcSs on
the first page of to-dsy's Sentinel.
Judge Curtis dcsscnStrates clearly
that there must be a limit somewhere
to the power of the President as Com
mander-in-ehief Of the army and na~
Wy of the United States, else the Fed
eral Constitution AMI laws as well as
tie State Governments are virtually
abrogated, and we have passed under
the actual control of a Military Die
tator or Dcspot.
1t is claimed for the President that
he may, as Military Commander, re-
resort to any measure he may deem ne
cessary or expedient to put down the
rebellion. But this is giving into the
hands of one man absolute power over
the lives and property of the citizens.
He may judge it necessary and ex>
pedient for the successful and vigorous
prosecution of the war, to abolish in
several or all the States the civil rela-
tions of master and apprentice, of guar
dian and ward, and even ofparent and
child. He may levy contributions
from private citizens in every State,
make conscriptions, and suspend or
abolish the judicial tribunals. The
supposition that the President possess.
es such power in time of war any more
than in time of peace, says the States
man, is manifestly absurd. There is,
then, some other limit to his military
authority as Commander-in> Chief than
his mere Judgment or discretion.
Judge Curtis shows conclusively
where this limit is. 1t is in the Con
stitution itself, which the President is
sworn to "preserve, protect and de,
fend," and by which he is as much
bound in time of war as in time oi
peace. 1t is true he can constitution
ally do things in war that he cannot dc
in peace; but he can only perform these
things by virtue of the power confer,
ed on him by the constitution, which
makes him "commander>in-chicf of til,
army and navy of the United States
and of the militia of the several States
when called into the actual service o
the United States" But the power
here conferred is not that of an abso
Lutte Military Dictator over the who'll
country, but Of mere General-in'
chief of the army. 1t might have
been conferred on some other officer il
the army or navy as well as on tn
President. Had it been so conferre
that General Halleck had been, instea
of President Lincoln, commander-in
chief, would it be pretended that h
had power above and beyond the Fec
eral Constitution and laws, that h
should set aside State Constitution
: and laws, abolish State institution
and suspend the privileges of the VIZ
T of habeas corpus throughout the lengt
! and breadth of the land?
Judge Curtis establishes beyon
controversy that the President canno
: as commander chief, do a single a.
which mere geneaal at the head
an army could not have done, had ii
constitution conferred the chief cor
mand Of the military and naval fore
on the latter. The President in h
. capacity of commander-in- chief is
mere military and naval officer, ar
G nothing more. Beyond that he HI
no power. He cannot make, repe
a or "modify,' single clause in the n
u itary law. He cannot even make
e new article of war. Thepower of IL
o President, as commander-in- chief, lii
= his power as civil officer, is alike
J. peace or war, merely executive. !
u is In his military capacity command
g of the soldiers, and not Of the citizel
/ of the United States, and over Il
n soldiers he has no power, except VIII
i is conferred by the articles of war e
. acted by Congress.
The President, SO far from beir
. placed above the Constitution al
flaws, is as much subject to them as t
:. poorest private citizen. AS Jud,
Curtis demonstrates, the President h
e no right to assume in emancipati
n and martial law proclamations, that