Holmes County farmer. [volume] (Millersburg, Ohio) 1857-1926, 1862-11-13

oH tne loyalty OF the citizens, with view
to the above described proceedings agains
them, when deemed suitable by the centra
authority.
Such is the plain and accurate state
ment Of the nature and extent of tho
powers asserted in these executive proc
lamations.
What is the source Of these vast pow.
ers Have they any limit? Are they
divided from or are they utterly inconsis
tent with the Constitution of the United
States
The only supposed source or measure
OF 'hcse vast powers appears to have
been designated by the President, in his
reply to the address of tie Chicago cler-
gymen, in the following words: "Un.
derstand, | raise no objections to it on
legal or unconstitutional grounds for,
as commander-in -chief of The army an
nary, IN time Of 'na'. ] swpposo hare q
rtghtto take any measure which n,oy Jes,
su6due tile enemy" This is clear and
frank declaration of the President re-
spectng the origin and extent of the pow
er he supposes himself to possess, and so
FAR as L know, no source Of Mese poperS
other than the authority of conmander-in-
ch,ef IN time Of war has eyer been Suggested
There has been much discussion con :
cerning the question whether the power
to suspend the privilege of the writ of
ho6eas corpus is conferred by the Constitu
ton on Congress or on the President
The only judicial decisions which have
been made upon this question have been
adverse to the power of the President
Still, very able lawyers have endeavored
to neutrality-suspicious. to the satisfaction
OF others-have maintained, that the pow =
er to deprive a particular person of the
privilege OF the writ is an executive power.
For while it has been generally, and, so
far as | know, universally admitted, that
Congress alone can suspend law OF
render it imperative, and consequently
that Congress alone can prohibit the
courts from issuing the writ, yet that the
executive might in particular cases, sus.
pend or deny the privilege which the wri;
was designed to secure. am not aware
that any one has attempted to show that
under this grant of power to suspend
"the privilege of the writ of ha5eas cor
pus,' the President may annul the laws
of States, create new oflenses unknown
to the laws of the United States, erect
military commissions to try and punish
them, and then, by sweeping decree,
suspend the writ of hobeaS corpus as to
all persons who shall be "arrested by
any military authority. l think he would
make more bold than wise experiment
ou the credulity of the people who should
attempt to convince them that this power
is to be found in the hobeds corpus clause
OF the Constitution. No such attempt has
been, and think none such will be made
And therefore, | repeat, that no other
source of this power has erer been su"-
gested, save that described by the Presi.
dent himself, as belonging to him as the
commander in chief
1t must be obvious to the meanest ca
pacity that, if the President of the Uni
ted State has an implied constitutional
right, as commander in chief of the army
and navy, in time Of war, to disregard
any one positive prohibition of the Con-
stitution, or to exercise any one power
not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution. because in his judgement,
he may thereby chest subdue the enemy"
he has tho same right, for the same rea-
son, to disregard each and every PROV
ision of tbs Constitutution, aud to exer-
else all power needfM in his opinion, to
enable him "bcst to 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 G onstitution, but was reserved to
the States. If the President, as comman-
derin- chief of the army and navy IN time
of war, may, by an executive decree, exer,
else this power to abolish slavery in the
States, which power was reserved to the
States, because he is of opinion that he
may thus "best subdue the enemy" what
other power, reserved to the States or to
The people, may not be exercised by the
President, for the same reason, that he is
Of opinion he may thus best subdue the
enemy? And if so, what distinction can
De made between powers not delegated to
o the United States at all, and powers
which, though thus delegated, are conferred
~ the Constitution upon some depart
nent of the government other than the
Indeed, the proclamation of
September "a, 1862. followed by the or
lers of the War Department, intended to
AIRY it into practical effect, ale manifest
mptions by the President of powers
to the Congress and to the judi
al department of the Government. 1t
$ clear and undoubted prerogative of
congress sloue, to define all of1enses, and
o affix to each some appropriate and not
rue or unusual punishment. But this
PROCLAMATION and these orders create new
'flenses not known to any law of the I'm
ted States. "Discouraging enlist
nents" aud "any disloyal practice" are
lot offenses known to any law o. the IN
ted States. At the same time they may
include among many other things, acts
which are oflenses against the laws of
he United States, and among others
reason. Under the Constitution and laws
# the United States, except in cases ari-
ing in the land and naval forces, every
'erson charged with an offense is express
Y required to be proceeded against and
ried by the judiciary of the United States
nd jury of his peer; and he is required
" the Constitution to be punished, in con-
ormity with some act of Congress ap-
,lcable to the of!ense, proved, enacted