The daily Gate City. [volume] (Keokuk, Iowa) 1855-1916, 1862-11-01
THE Ph EssDENF,S PROcLAMA-
TION.
Judge Parsons and yndge curtis.

To the Editors of the Boston Daily Adv
There are three questions concerning
the Presidents emancipation proclama-
ton. One, has he n constitutional pow
er to issue il as civil, political or admin.
istrative act The second, was it expe-
dent ? The third, has he constitutional
power as commander in chief, to issue it,
at this time, as military act
These questions are perfectly distinct
One of the most common and most fruit
full causes of error upon ali subjects, is
the mngling of questions which are dis.
tinct In themselves, but so near each 9th.
er that they confuse each other.
Judge Curtis mingles these questions
so entirely, that no study Of his pamphlet
enables me to see clearly as to much OF
his arguments upon which of these ques-
tons it is intended to bear.
Let us separate these questions.
| am sure that the president has no
power to emancipate single slave, as a
civil, political Or administrative act.
Was it expedient leave this ques
ton to the President. For he is honest,
he is capable; he has considered the
question long, carefully and painfully -
and in all the 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 constitu
tlonal power as commander in chief, to
issue this proclamation as a military act.
Ii Halleck, when before Corinth, might
have sent force hundred miles to catch
and bring into his line hundred negroes
with the wagons, horses and provisions
they were bringing to Beauregard, the
| president and commander in chief, sitting
! In The center with wider views, wider me-
ressi.lrS, and wider rights to meet those
necessities, may, ii lie can, prevent the
whole mass of slaves from laberipp to
feed the rebellion. He may, if he can,
by the danger of instruction, or starva-
ton, or loss of property, dishcartcn the
rebels and drive their armies home.
To say otherwise would be to say that
he might strike al n rebellion, but must
be careful not to strike away it's corner
stone.
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,
aud do it il he can
Judge Curtis speaks much and elo-
quently Of the PRESIDENT right 10 inAict
penalty" and punishment, = and the
rights of The rebels to the protection of
the law.
Rebellion has no rights II rebellion
means anything it means the renuncia-
ton and destruction Of all law. And
therefore it is accurscd before God and
man.
No rebel has any right, regard to
which should weaken or obstruct any
military measure needed TO subdue the
rebellion.
Judge Curtis 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 a
fetter.
Then he tells US the innocent must snf-
fer with the guilty. This is true, aud il
is sad. But when the mingled FIRE and
hail OF Gods vengeance run along the
ground, they pursue no devious path that
they may leave the homes of the innocent
unframed /; for when national calamities.
the innocent suffer with the guilty. This
may be one OF the mysteries of provi-
dence; 1t is, at all events, fact. And
what has been will be.
THEOPHILUs PARSONS.