Indiana State sentinel. (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1863-03-30
The Transfer of Authority from one
Department 10 Another.

TIE Supreme Court of Wisconsin have decided
that in the absence Of State laws regulating the
mode of making a draft, Congress might dele
gate to the President the authority to prescribe
the rules necessary TO its enforcement. We sub
join that portion Of the Constitution providing
for the raising and support of armies. Section 8
declares:
1.-The Congress shall have power to raise and
support armies, but no appropriation Of money to
that use shall be for longer term than two years;
to provide and maintain a navy; to make rules
for the government and regulation of the land
and naval forces; to provide for calling forth the
militia to execute the laws of The Union. sup
press Instructions and repel inyasiOns; to pro-
vide for organizing. arming. and diseiplining the
militia. and for governing such part Of them as
may be employed in the service of the United
States; reserving to the States respectively the
appointment of the officers, and the authority of
training the militia according to the laws of Con-
gress."
We have here the entire of authority in the
premises, conferred by the Constitution upon the
General Government. Ii is vested in Congress
alone, and must consequently be exercised by
Congress. If that body may delegate one pOr-
ton of the authority herein conferred, it may
delegate all Ii may authorize the President to
make appropriations of money as justly as it
may empower him to prescribe the laws govern
ing a draft. When we acknowledge that power
vested in one department of the Government NAV
be transferred to another, we admit, virtually,
that the establishment of separate departments
was mere ~jugglery, without practical benefit, and
not intended by those who framed the COnstitu-
ton to be literally enforced.
A doctrine leading to such grave consequences
should be exposed. How grave are its results,
and how subversive of every individual and cor
porate right and franchise, the despOtism now
abroad discloses.
1t is a doctrine permitting the President to set
his heel upon every citizen. IL sweeps away
every barrier erected by the Constitution for the
protection of ''inalienable rights'-rights which
would adhere to all ia the absence Of any consti-
tutional provisions guarding them.
That the Supreme Court of a State should have
made such a decision is passing strange. That
they should have made ii in a case where the
honor and sovereignty of the State we're at issue,
debasing to both, and placing the liberties of its
citizens within the grasp of . single irresponsible
acknowledgements becauSe of the transfer
of authority which made him superior to law, is
inexplicable.
Ii has been made. and the people of the State
will obey il. Had The decision been the opposite
of what it was. would the authorities at Wash
ington have yiel.ed obediencer lf the Supreme
Court in other States decide adversely to the de-
cisio, of Wisconsin. will the President submit to
the decision, or, as la the case of Judge Smailey
in Vermont. and Of Judge Constable in this
State. will Federal officers. either civil or military
be instructed TO defy and treat with contempt the
Judiciary that interveneS between law and des-
potism-[Chicago Times