Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1863-06-04
STRENUOUS DULLNESS.

The laws cited by US few days ago Is having
been enacted by the last Congress to meet such
cases as those created by the charge and specifca
tons brought against Mr. Valandighsm, were SO
explicit and precise in their terms that they were
not capable of being misunderstood by any body
who can read. In quoting these statutes we as
sumed that in the multiplicity of their duties, the
President and Gen. Burnside had equally forgot
ten that there were any such enactments made and
provided to meet the emergency" produced by
the Incorporate speeches of Mr.. Vallandigham in
Ohio or Of Mr.. Wendell Phillips in New York.
The great mass Of our contemporaries, where they
have taken any notice of the matter, concur with
the opinion EXPIRE ssed by the New York Evening
Post when it said, with these statutes before it,
that there was mo escape from the plain demands
of the law, even if there desire to do SO. /"
The law may be forgotten or dsregarded, but it
cannot be mistaken.
We find, however, in the columns of the Gin
cinnati Gazette vigorous attempt to simulate
opacity on this subject but, with all his efforts to
do some violence to his understanding, the writer
succeeds only in demonstrating his inability to i'm
pose on his own intelligence the obfuscations with
which he seeks to dim the vision of less sagacious
readers.
The only other case of strenuous dulness which
has come under our notice on this point is that of
a correspondent who writes for the New York
Times from "The Beeches," wherever that is
under the signature of veteran Observer" and
who, in recent communication to that journal,
endeavors to mystify himself, if not the subject,
as follows:
"The Intellgencer quotes the Statutes Of the last Con-
prees tn show that Congress had conferred full jurisdiction
over this case and directed the courts how to proceed
True But the mistake OF the is 10 assuming
that because Congress bad conferred this jurisdiction
the civil courts that therefore, it took from military
manders aud military courts their power and jurisdiction
matters which were necessary to the purposes of war
Ii did such thing Let IL IS mot in the cOnstitn
tiona po,oer of Congress TO do that War having
been declared the President alone is charged with the
mode and of its execution and it is not in the
power Of Congress TO cut down the Executive power
the proceedings Of the army IN the least particular.
Here i, logic. The last Congress passed laws
comforting on the courts full jurisdiction over
"this case" The President, who is the head of
the Executive Government approved these laws.
In the FIRST case that brings them to public know
ledge they disregarded and set aside by military
force and this because the President, says "Vete
ran Observer" signed laws which were unconsti-
tutional in the limitations they impose on his bel
ligerent authority 1T is not IN the power of the
Congress" he adds, "to cut down the Executive
power over the proceedings of the army in the least
particular" What vast mass Of Legislation en-
acted by the last Congress this luminous decara-
ton sweeps away Under it the maxim that
I" the King can do no wrong" will hold good of our
President as long as he has an army in the field
Fortunately, we have in Mr.. Lincoln President
who, if liable like other men to lapses of memory
or errors of judgment, has perspicacity enough to
preserve him from being beguiled by such sophsms.