Daily State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1862-11-13

this executive decree holds out this proposed
repeal of STATE laws threatened penalty
/ TO the continuance OF governing majority
of the people OF each State, or part O. a
State, in rebellion against the United States
So that the President hereby assumes TO him.
+ sell the power TO denouncc 1t rs n punishment
against the entire pee ole OF a State, that the
valid laws OF that State xaich regulate the
domestic condition OF its inha BIZ ants shall be-
come null and void, az certain future date.
/ by reason OF the criminal conduct of a gov
erning majority of its people.
This penalty, however, II should be OBJ
served, is not TO be inflicted on those persons
who have been guilty of treason. The free
dom of their slaves was already provided for
by the act of Congress, recited In a subse-
quent part OF the proclamation. Ii is not.
therefore, "a a punishment of guilty persons,
that the commander-n-chief DEGREES the free
dom OF the slaves. 1t is upon the slaves of
| loyal persons, or from those who. from their
tenderyears, orothcrdisab lity cannot be either
disloyal or Otherwise, that the proclamation
Is to operate, if at all; and it is to operate TO
set them free, in spite of the valid laws of
their States, because a majority OF the legal
voters don0t send representatives to Congress.
Now it Is easy to understand how persons
held TO service under the laws of these States.
and how the army and the navy. under the
orders of the President, may overturn these
valid laws OF the States just as it easy TO inn
agine that any law may be rio'dted BIZ psvsicdl
force. But do not understand it to be the
purpose OF the President to incite part of
the inhabitants Of the United States to rise I'm
insurrection against valid laws but that by
virtue of some power which he possesses, he
proposes to annul those laws. 20 that lhev are
no longer to have any operation.
The second proclamation, and the orders of
the Secretary of War, which follow II. place
every citizen of the United States under the
direct military command and control of the
President. They declare and define new
olienses, not known 10 any law of the United
States. They subject all citizens TO be i'm
prisoned upon military order, at the pleas
ure of the President, when, where. and 50
long as he. or whoever is acting for him, NAV
choose. They hold the citizen to trial before
a military commission appointed by the Pres
ident or his representative. for such acts or
omissions as the President NAV think proper
to decree 10 be ofenses; and they subject him
| to such punishment as such military commits
sion may be pleased to infct They create
new Offices, in such number, and whose occu-
pants arc to receive such compensation as the
President may direct; and the holders of these
Offices, scattered through the s ates. bat with
one chief iEquisitor at Washington, arc 10 in
spect and report upon the loyalty of the cit
zens with view To the above described pro-
ceedlngs against them. when deemed suitable
b. the central authority
Such is plain and accurate statement of
the nature and extent Of the powers asserted
in these executive proclamationS.
What is the source OF these vast powers? +?
Have they any limit? Are they derived
from. or are they utterly inconsistent with,
the Constitution Of the United States?
The only supposed source or measure Of
these vast powers. appears to have been des-
ignated by the President, in his reply TO the
address of the Chicago clergy men, in the fol-
lowing words =" Understand, / ra'se no OBJ
lection TO it on legal or constitutional grounds;
for, as commander-in-chief Of The ormy and
nooy, an hn'e Of ,car. suppose Ihace a right
10 take any measure which moy best subfue the
enemy" This is clear and frank declaration
OF the President resi- Getting the origin and ex-
tent OF the power he supposes himself to pos
sess; and, so far a | know. no source of these
Po'cers oher than the authority of commanders
U-ch'ef m dme of war, has ecer been suggested.
There has been much discussion concerning
, the question whether the power 10 suspend
the privilege OF the writ of habeas corpus. -
is conferred by the Constitution on CONGRESS.
or on the President. The only judicial de-
, cIsIons winch have been made upon this ques-
tlon have been adverse to the power OF the
; President. Still, very able lawyers have en-
deavored TO neutrality-suspicious. to the salts
faction OF others-have maintained, that the
t. | To ~ 4.
, privilege OF the writ is an executive power.
For while it has been generally, and so far as
. l know. universally admitted, that CONGRESS
alone can suspend law, or render It inopera-
{ tive. and consequently that Congress alone
can prohibit the courts from issuing the writ.
yet that the executive might. in par,icular
: cases, suspend or deny the privilege which
: the writ was designed TO secure. / am not
aware that any one has attempted to show,
that under this grant OF power to suspend
, 1.-The privilege OF the writ OF habeas corpus. -
the President may annul the laws OF States.
create new offences unknown to the laws of
the United States, erect military commissions
to try and punish them and then, by sweep
t inc decree, suspend the writ OF habeas corpus
as to al persons who shall be ARRESTED bv
t any military authority" l think he would
make more bold than wise experiment on
t the credulity of the people, who should at
5 tempt TO convince them that this power Is
found in the habcas corpus clause OF the Con-
/ situton. No such attempt has been, and |
think none such will be made And there
fore | repeat, that 10 other source OF this
power has erer been suggested save that de-
scribed BY the President himself. as belonging
to him a commander-n-chlef
, 1t must b. obvious to the meanest CAPACITY,
that it the President Of the United States has
5 an implied constitutional right, as commander
in-chief of the army and navy, in time o.
5 war, to disregard any one positive prohibition
I OF the Constitution. to exercise any one
; power not delegated 10 the United States bv
: the Constitution, because, in his judgment. he
may thereby best subdue the enemy he has
the same righs, for the same reason to disre-
{ gard each and every provision of the Consti-
tuition, and to exercise all power needfm, in
his opinion, to enable him best subdue the
: enemy"
1t has never been doubted that the power
to abolish slavery within the States was not
: delegated to the United States by the Consti-
, tuition. but was reserved 10 the States. Ii the
( President, as commander-n-chief OF the army
and navy IN time of war, may, by an execu-
, tive decree. exercise this power to abolish