The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1862-11-07

persons, that the commander-in-chiefd de-
crees the freedom of the slaves. It is upon
the slaves Of loyal persons, or upon those
who, from their tender years or other dis
ability, cannot be either disloyal or other
wise, that the proclamation is to operate
to set them free, in spite of the valid laws
of their States, because majority of the
legal voters do not send representatives to
Congress.
Now it is easy to understand how per-
sons held to service under the laws of the
United States, and how the army and ma
Wy under the orders of the President, NAV
overturn these valid laws of the States, Just
as it is easy to imagine that any law may
be oiolated by physical force. But l not
understand it to be the purpose of the
President to incite part of the inhabi-
tants of the United States to rise in insur-
rectiOn against valid laws but that by
virtue of some power which he possesses,
he proposes to annul those laws, so that
they are no longer to have any operation.
The second proclamation, and the or
ders OF the Secretary of War, which follow
it, place every citizen of the United States
under the direct military command and
control of the President They declare
and define new offences, not known to any
law of the United States They subject all
citizens to be imprisoned upon military
order, at the pleasure of the President,
when, where, and so long as he. or who
ever is acting for him, may choose They
hold the citizen to trial before military
commission appointed by the President, or
his representative, for such acts or omis-
sons as the President may think proper to
decree to be offences; and they subject
him to such punishment as such military
commission may be pleased to inhict They
create new offices, in such number. and
whose occupants are to receive such COM
pensation, as the President may direct
and the holders of these offices, scattered
through the States, but with one chief in
quisitOr at Washington, are to inspect and
report upon the loyalty of the citizens,
with view to the above described pro-
ceedings against them, when deemed suit
able by the central authority.
Such is plain and accurate statement
OF the nature and extent of the powers
asserted in these executive proclamatiOns.
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
designated by the President, in his reply to
the address of the Chicago clergymen, in
the following words Understand, | raise
no objection against it on legal or constitu-
tional grounds; for, as commandments
chief Of the army and macy, IN time Of
wdr, l suppose hare a right to Take ony
measure Ghich mag best subdue Tie enc
my." This is a clear and frank declara-
ton of the President respecting the origin
and extent of the power he supposes him
self to possess: and, so far as l know, no
source Of those pO,reyS, other than The az
Mority oeMe conam0ntler-in-chief liz time
VfMar, las erc1' been suggested.
There has been much discussion concern
ing the question whether the power to sus-
pend the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus" is conferred by the Constitution
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 maintain,
perhaps to the satisfaction Of Others
have maintained, that the power to deprive
a particular person of g 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, or render it imperative,
and consequently that Congress alone can
prohibit the courts from issuing the writ,
yet that the executive might, in particular
eases, 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
+" the privilege OF the writ of habeas cor
pus," the President may annul the laws of
States, create new offences, unknown to
the laws of the United States, erect mill
tary commissions to try and punish them,
and then. by a sweeping decree, suspend
the writ of habeas corpus as to all persons
who shall be ARRESTED by any military au-
thOrity." think he would make more
bold than wise experiment on the credulity
of the people, who should attempt to con-
vince them that this power is found in the
habeas corpus clause Of the Constitution
No such attempt has been, and I think
none such will be made. And therefore I
repeat, that no other source of this power
has erer been suggested, save that de-
scribed by the President himself, as be-
longing to him as the commandments chief
1t must be obvious to the meanest ca
pacity, that if the President of the United
States had an implied constitutional right,
as commander-in-ch of the army and
navy, in time of war, to disregard any pO-
stive prohibition of the Constitution, or to
the United States by the Constitution, be-
cause, in his judgement, he may thereby
''best subdue the enemy" he has the
same right, for the same reason, to disre-
gard each and every provision of the Con-
stitutiOn, and to exercise all power neeCyfA,
IN his opinion, to enable him ''best to
subdue the enemy"
1t has never been doubted that the pow
er to abolish slavery within the States was
not delegated to the United States by the
constitution, but was reserved to the
States. If the President, as commander
in-chiet of the army and navy in time of