Daily national Republican. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1862-1866, 1863-01-15
THE WAR POWERS OF THE PREsI-
DENT.

one hundred ana loTty-thTto pages, entitled
THE War Powers of the President and the
Legislative Powers of Congress, in Relation to
Rebellion, Treason aud Slavery. By William
Whiting We recognize the author as one Of
New England's ablost lawyers. The book cy-
hiblts great research, and, II seems to us, is
complete and unansworabc in the special work
TO which II Is devoted. We observe that the
National Bltslligmosr thinks otherwise. 1t says;
"Upon one point the argument orMr. Whit.
ing, as stated In the preface Of the pamphlet.
at the very threshold Of the discussion, obvious
ly proceeds on an erroneous Interpretation Of
the language OF the Presidents emancipation
proclamation. We aIludc TO the distinction he
makes between omanelpating all the slaves in
rebel state and abollshing the laws which
sustain slavery In such State. Tho former
says Mr.. Whiting, the President may rightfully
do. but tho latter is not within his power
when the President, as In his late procla-
nation, orders and declares "that all persons
held as slaves within certain designated States
and parts Of statesn are and henceforward shall
DO free, he certainly assumes, with respect TO
all the slaves residing In such States or parts
OF states, TO suspend or repeal tho State laws
which make them slaves. By the laws of these
states certain persons are held as slaves. BY
the proclamation Of the President they arc DE-
clOred free, without being made free, and this
declaration Is utterly unmeaning, unless the
President conceiVes that he has the right TO
abolish the sanctions OF the State law which
holds the present race Of slaves in bondage.
And this conclusion is not avoided by saying,
as Mr.. Whiting does, that after the war Is over
the status Of slavery may be ro-creatod under
the law Of the States within which the Prosi.
dent has declared all existing slaves free. The
only force or effect Of this statement Is to show
that the President does not assume the right to
repeal or suspend the State law of slavery with
regard to all future generations of negroes and
through all ages Of the world.
when the local law of Alabama declares
that certain persons are legally held as slaves,
and the President declares that the same per
sons are and henceforth shall be Free we take
II for granted that the latter edict assumes to
abolish, Yi1OGd these persons, the law Of that
state For, otherwise how can j. be said that
these persons ARE free %
more complete answer to, and thorough
REPUTATION of, the argument Of the hltslIigenccr,
quoted above, could not possibly be written
than will be found, from Mr.. Writings own
pen, in the Preface to tho Second Edition ;,
of his book. He says:
"To prevent Misunderstanding, the learned
reader Is requested TO observe the distinction
between olnHncipating or confscating slaves,
and abolishing the laws which sustain slavery
in the slave States. The former merely takes
away slaves from the possession and control of
their masters the latter deprives the lnhabI-
Lants of those States of the lawful right of oh
tanning, by purchase or otherwise, or Of holding
slaves. Emancipation or conhscation operates
only upon the slaves personally; but law
nbolishing the right TO hold slaves In the slave
States, operates on all citizens residing there,
aud effects a change of local law. II all the
horses now in Massachusetts, were 10 be confs-
Gated n ata al h,,n
lie Use, though this proceeding would change
the legal title to these horses, Il would not alter
the laws OF Massachusetts as TO personal prop- |
ertyi nor would 1t deprive our citizens Of the |
legal right TO purchase and use other horses.
The acts for conhscation or emancipation of
encmy's slaves, and the President's pfoclana !
ton OF the 22d of September, do not abolish |
slavery as n legal institution in the States; they
act upon persons held as slaves; they alter no |
local laws in any Of the States; they do not pur-
port TO render slavery unlawful; they merely |
seek to remove slaves from the control of rebel !
masters: IL slavery shall cease by reason of
lheJegal emancipation Of slaves, Il will be be-
cause slaves are removed; nevertheless. the
laws that sanction slavery may remain in full
lorcc The death Of all the negroes on q plan
ldtion would result In total loss to the owner
oil 80 much property but that loss would
not prevent the owner from buying other ne
groes, and holding them by, slave laws, Death
ty Emancipation and conhscatlOn, In like
manner, do not necessarily interfere with local
law establishing slavery.
The right to liberate slaves, or to remove the
condition or status Of slavery, as II applies to
al slaves living at any one time, or the right to
abolish slavery In the sense Of liberatlng all
existing slaves, is widely different and distinct
from the right Of repeating or annullIng the
laws OF States which sanction the holding of
slaves. State slave laws may or may not be
beyond the reach Of the legislative powers of
Congress; but If they are, that fact would not
determine the question as to the right to eman.
clpate, lb0rate, or TO change the relation to
their masters of slaves ,IotC lVJg; nor the gues-
lion rs to the right of aboliShing slavery, In the
sense IN which this expression Is used when Il |
eighties the liberation of persons now held as
slaves, from the operation of slave laws; while
these laws arc still left to act on other persons
who may be hereafter reduced TO slavery under
them"
The proclamation Of the President Is an invi
iation to loyal subjects in the rebelllous States.
o leave the service Of disloyal masters. II de-
lares 10 them that he Government will respect
heir right TO personal liberty. This great
measure OF necessity may be made efiectual
II either Of several avs. If the Union forces
apture tho slaves, or if tho slaves refuse TO
'crye their masters, or If they run away, the
object Of the proclamation Is substantially at
aimed, because, in either Of these coutingen.
los, the rebels lose what they are fighting for,
md they arc crippled in their resources for
the war.
II the doctrine of the b,tciligctcer b. sound,
hen the slaves could not be captured and re-
moved by the Government, because the Gov.
rnment cannot alter the State lar by which
uCh slaves are held.
Mr. Whiting maintains that freeing certain
slaves does not alter the slave law. The Intel
tgencer maintains that the proclamation, by
declaring that slaves are and henceforth shall
be Tree, undertakes to alter the law Of the
lave States If proclamation had said that
slavery should be unlawful In those States
loreafter," or that the "slavc laws shall be
ePoaled," such proclamation might have been
as an attempt to alter laws but
he proclamation merely DEGREES, in effect,
hat "psrsORs HoW held as slaves should be
leaned and held by this Government as now
roe" and shall be treated accordingly; and
whenever the military power of this Govern
Il pnHiptant IN 81