The Weekly Perrysburg journal. [volume] (Perrysburg, O. [Ohio]) 1861-1???, 1862-11-12
what Professor Parsons Thinks Of Judge

CurtiS's View of the Executive Power.
To Ne Editor cfssc Bo'oa Duay Aircrti~r;
There are three questions concerning the
Presidents Emancipation Proclamation,
One--lIas he constitutional power to
issue it as u civil, political, ur aimiujsiro-
tive act?
The Second-Was it expcdieu;?
The third-llas he constitutional power.
as Commandcr-in-Chicf, to issue il, at this
time, as u military act?
These questions are perfectly distinct
One of the most common and fruitful causes
of error upon all subjects is the mug)ug of
questions which are distinct ia themselves,
but 50 near each other that they confuse
each other.
Judge Curtis miugcs these questions SO
entirely, that no study of his pamphlet
enables me to see clearly as to much OF his
argument upon which of thesc questions it
is intended to bear.
Let us separate these questions.
am sure that the President has no
power to emancipate n single slave, rs a
civil political or administrative act
Was it expcdcnt?
leave this question to tho President.
For he is honest. he is capable. he has con.
sidered the question long, carefully and
painfully, and in all the relations in which
it can present itself. However wise may
he, or Judge Curtis may he. ON this subject
the President is wiser, or all rules of prob
ability fail.
AS to the remaining question. have not
the slightest doubt of his constitutional
power, rs Commandcr-iu-Chef,t To issue this
proclamation as a military act
IC Ilallcck. when before Corinth, might
haN -, fol,
and bring back into his lines a hundred ne
groes with the wagons. horses and provis-
ions they were bringing to Bcaurcgard. the
President aud Commander-in-Chicl sitting
in the center, with wider views, wider
necessities; and wider rights to meet those
necessities. may if he can. prevent the
whole mass of slaves from Iahoring to feed
the rebellion, He may, if he can, 10y the
danger of insurrecti0n, or of starvation, or
of loss of property, dishearten the rebels,
and drive their armies home.
To say otherwise would be to say he
might strike at rebellion. hut he must he
careful not to. strike away it's corner stone,
Can he do it III fact? This question touches
the expediency of the measure. and this
leave to him. But it does not touch his
military right to threaten 1t, and do it If he
can.
Judge Curtis speaks much and eloQucntly
of the Presidents right to inilict penalty
and punishment" and the rights of the
rebels to the protection of the law.
Rebellion has no rights. If rebellion
means anything it means the remuneration
and destruction of all law. And therefore
it is accursed before God and man,
No rebel has any right. regard to which
should weaken or ohsrUct any military
measure needed to suhduc the rebellion,
Judge Curtss argument would give thc
Constitution and the law to the rebels, as
their sword 70 smitc and their shield to save
them, and leave 1t to us only as "a teit2r.
Then he tells US the innocent must suffer
with the guilty. This is true, and it is sad
But when tho mingled hail and fire of Gods
vengeance run along the ground, they pur
sue no devious path that they may leave
the homes of the innocent mharmed fol
when national sins bring national calamites
the innocent suffer with the guilty. This
may be one of the mysteries of Providence
it is, at all events, a fact. And what has
been will be,
,r-,