Litchfield enquirer., 1863-03-26

tTatiop who had done that act. A more black hot, and deliberate misrepresentation was ney- CT uttered by sane man, and while he talks of throwing things into the teeth of the Re. publicans, let him cram this foul and abomi- nable assertion down his parched throat, and may it stick there, until he shall acquire fac ulty of approximating to something like the truth. A
 The Saud is attempting to destroy our na- tional organization, .is attempting to cut itself loose from the obligations imposed by
 he great Supreme law of the land, is attempt- ing, not in conformity with either the letter or spirit of that law, ta form more perfect union. but, by the effort of physical force, to lbreak the national bond under which they have eyer lived, in the full and complete enjoyment of every right. Not only are the South doing this, but they have their agents and supporters, and have had iron. the very beginning of our present difficulties, scattered all through the free States of the North, East and West, who have been, and are, laboring with fsndish as siduity to accomplish the objects and purposes l of their Southern ouners. Was the President 1 ignorant, was the Administration ignorant, of the fendish purposes of these agents and sup porters of treason, black and diabolical? If not, what was to be done? What ought to have been done? What was right and aeees- sary under suck circumstances of national per l il as enveloped our land? Was the President to remain idle? Had he TO po,cer to act !? ] Was he to fold his arms, and silently see these agents and supporters of treason work the de- struction of our national organization, and make no effort to arrest them in their diaboG- cal course? No, he could not remain idle. He had power to aot-legitimate, consultation al authority to act. Every instinct of mans better nature, every principle of right, duty and patriotism, every element of individual and national good, safety, power greatness an unity, forced him to act The obligations of his oath to preserre. protect and detsnd the law of our national union, left him no alterna- tive. It was a personal obligation, resting upon him as the Executive. He saw our na- tional union, our national organization, that Supreme law from which we draw our national 1 life assailed. He saw treason. and the agents and supporters of treason, clutching with fend- ish fury at the national throat. What should he do? l say he had no discretion in such an emergency
 Looking to the law, first and foremost he saw tt was ordained and established, in order :" to form q more perfect anton, &c. Looking still further, was that solemn obligation to pre- serre, protect and defend Mis prorision of the law. low should this be done Clearly through the agency of such means and meas ures as might be right, necessary and proper, to develope and carry forward to sure, perma- nent, complete success and perfection, the ob- jects and purposes of the law. The President is not confined to any particular line ofpolicy except that his action must be shaped with re. ference to the preservation, perpetuity and strengthening of the objects and purposes of tie law. This law has left him at full lib- erty to adopt such means and measures as he may deem right, necessary and proper, to the attainment of these ends. If the arrest of traitors-if the arrest of the agents and sup- porters of treason-or if the arrest of those whose conduct is such as tends to the destruc- ton of our national Union, be necessary, to maintain and uphold it, then say, such acts on the part of the Executive, arc right and l proper and if necessary, right and proper, looking to the accomplishment of such a Pur- pose, then they are constitutional for that which is necessary, right and proper to pre- serve the Constitution from the violent and ruthless attacks of physical force, cannat he unconstitutional.
 I It does not follow. because we cannot hnd in the law, language whichin direct and positive terms directs or permits the Executive to ar rest, that therefore, he has no such right. His duty under the law ia as broad as the law it. self, and his oath to preserve, protect and de fend it, being part of the law, his right to arrest is as ample in the Constitution, where
  such act is necessary to its preservation and rerpstuity, as if the same had been particular Fly expressed It is the exercise of q necessary right for the preservation of the law, and it comes within the scope of his constitutional duties. It must not be forgot, that we are looking at this question in 2 state of war, a war organized and carried on with the avowed object and design of those by whom # was in, stigated, to dismember the Union, and the ar- rests of those engaged in that enterprise. | There is, however, another aspect in which we may view the constitutional right of the Executive to arrest, and refer to that clause of the law which makes him omnandes-in- csief of the Army, &c. What are the powers and |duties of the President, and what may he do as such Commaader-in: pAief, in time of war? The law does not point out single ting that s| he may do. It is entirely silent as to his pow CTS and duties, yet nay he not actin given Il ..,, :,, thofs canacitv sinnnlv hooausa