OCR Text |
Show 24 THE GOLDEN HOUR. The trut1 1 1. s, 1' t I.S a doomed institution. Our fathers pronounce d sen t one e 0 n it ' oo· i vi n orr it the b c n c Gt of clergy, W ll Ci.e. O f l. t 1l as availed. it elf to. the last t.r ctch of grace. Tl1 e d ay and deed of execution they a s1. gned to the1. r pos t cr. . 1· tY · From us it may get a repneve; · but a pardon, never ! II. THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 8'r.A.TES, AS COM· MANDER-IN-CI IIEF OF1 OUR ARMY AND NAVY, M.A. Y ABOlr I H SLAVERY UNDER MARTIAL LA \V. This is a purely Inilitary power, and c~nscqnently Congress canno t , u nder the war power, aboh. sh Slav. ery. Congress may, l1 Owcvcr ' impeach the Prcs1dcnt, 1f, to the d c t rn. nen t of tile Republic ' he should refuse to do this. The war power being legitimated by the Constitution, its edicts are constitutional law until repealed by dne process of legislation' remaining in force after the exigency which evoked them is pa ·t. The slaves of rebels in the departinent lately under J. C. Fren1ont are legally, as under martial law be declared them, free men; and should any one of them sue for libcrt!, he could only be surrendered to his master by a decision that the Pre ·idcnt's modification of ~Ir. Fremont's Proclamation was a military order of re-enslavement, superseding ordinary process of law. They arc either free 1ncn, or the Pre idcnt has, for military reasons, sent thcn1 to the d ungcon of lavery, as he has sent political prisoners to Fort Warren. IN COMMON LAW. 25 It is an error to suppose that, if the slaves were declared free by the Colntnan<lcr-in-Chief, the effect of such proclan1aLion would pass away when the rebellion was suppressed. The Pre idcnt might, during the war, and under tho power which had emancipated them, re-cnslavo them,- holding hhnsclf ready, in both cases, to show tho military reasons for his action. lie is supposed to act by necessity. But except by such military necessity and power, he could not revoke his proclamation. It would. be law until unmade by ·Congress. Equally is it an error to suppose that auy State would be able, after the liberation of slaYcs by the United States, to rc-cnslavc them. Whilst the govcrnrncn t recognizes as sla vcs those who arc so by birth and by fact, yet for a State to enslave a man \vhom even its own laws have pronounced free, would be contrary to the article of the Constitution which secures every "person" fro1n being arbitrarily deprived of life, liberty, or property; but that slaves liberated by the laws of the United States could not be made slaves by any State, is manifest from Art. VI. of the Constitution, which declares: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties ~ado, or which shall be 1nadc, under the authority of the United States, shall be the suprc1nc law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." 2 |