Orleans independent standard. [volume] (Irasburgh, Vt.) 1856-1871, 1864-02-05
Two Legal Questions.

First We hear it frequently said TIA
president Lincoln's emancipation procla-
nation is doing US mischief, and ever
some learned men urge him to abandon
tina; position and issue a counter procla-
nation reversing his proclamation of lib
erty. VIII gentlemen learned in the
law tell US, If that proclamation destroyed
slavery, would another proclamation re-
store it /? II seems to us, very clearly, il
would not. 1t is assumed, no doubt just
~, that as a war measure, from the me-
ccssity OF the case, and in order that the
rebellion should be put down, the presi-
dent as COMMUNICATIVE chief had power
to emancipate the slaves of states in re
bellion. John Quincy Adams long ago
affirmed this doctrine, and even Alex. II.
Stevens, vice president Of the bogus con-
federacy, said the same in Georgia, be-
fore its secession. II this be correct
doctrine, then the presidents proclama-
ton made all the slaves in localities emu
merated free in law, and as soon as law
is enforced in the rebellious territory,
they must be free in fact. Then comes
up the question Can the president by
another proclamation enslave those who
are free? Has he the power even as a
war measure? If so we cannot see why
he may not exercise that power upon
whites as well as part whites, or blacks,
But. says one, if be can do the first, why
not the last !? Ii seems 20 US there is a
wide difference. A man by bis deed can
give, or sell piece of land, or by bill of
sale dispose Of any other property, yet
be cannot by another decd or counter
bill, resume possession. His right over
1t is good. So man by deed of manu-
mission can give bis slave bis freedom,
but he cannot by counter deed make him
slave again. Applying these well
known principles to the proclamation Of
president Lincoln, if that is valid, if lie
had the power to do what he proposed
the deed is done the slaves are free, or
have title to their freedom which no
counter proclamation can take from them.
"Old Abe" has done 1t, and cannot take it
back. Therefore if bis proclamation was
good, il cannot be reversed, and if not
rood il need not be reversed. If our
are correct all parties may as
veil accept and adopt the policy, and not u
rge The president 10 spoil paper by n
seloss counter blast. Are we correct !,
Second. The power to hold slaves is 6,
q extraordinary power, not recognized ;,
? the law of nations, and opposed to h
hristianity and the declaration Of indie e
endence. The constitution enforces, or
aries out that declaration, and slavery a
only grated on to that instrument, and
as opposite from il as light from dark I
ess. Ii authorizes it only 10 the section '
n regard to the reserved rights of the {
tates originally adopting the constitution,
md it is denied that it anywhere author
yes it. But admitting that somehow it
was 10 the compact, does il still exist
The states 10 rebellion have forfeited all
heir rights under the constitution and of
course this among others. Suppose they
don't lay down their arms, and general
act Of amnesty be passed, would that re.
store slavery even if president Lincoln
had not spoken? 1t seems to us, that,
being an extraordinary power, it can only
be restored by an act specifically relating
to it. No general amnesty would reach
il no ordinary act Of restoration would
even restore il. Unless it is specifically
restored it is dead, and of course if it is
bus restored the north, or the Union
Toes it. We should then be responsible
or it. Are we right?
Question Of Equity. Having brought i
IpOn US this dreadful war, ought the south
o be restored without paying the cost?