The Hancock Jeffersonian. [volume] (Findlay, Ohio) 1857-1870, 1863-07-24
Case Of G. L. Vallandigham
Reply Of President Lincoln to the chit
Committee.

lWlth your Introductory and closing
remarks, being in position and nrgu-
ment mainly the same as the resolu.
tions OF the Democratic meeting al
Albany, New York, refer you TO my
response TO the latter as meeting most
of the points in the former. This re.
sponse you evidently used in prepar-
ing Your remarks, and | desire nc
more than that il be used with accu.
racy In n single reading Of your re.
marks, | only discovered one inaccu-
raos' IN rnetta~ " hicls I supnose YOU
took from that paper. tits where you
say:
The undersigned are unable to
agree with you in the opinion yon have
expressed that the Constitution is diff.
ferent i'm time of insurrection or invas.
ion from which it is in time of peace
ond public security"
A recurrence to the paper will show
you that / have not expressed the
opinion You suppose. j expressed
the opinion that the Constitution is
different in its application in cases ol
rebellion or invasion, involving the
public safety, from what it is in times
ofproiound peace and public security;
and this opinion / adhere TO, simply
because by the Constitution itself
things may be done in the one case
which may not be done in the other
] dislike to waste q word on mere
lv personal point, but I must respect
fully assure You that you viii find
yourselves ut fault should you ever
seek for evidence to prove your as
sumption that ! opposed in discus.
sion before the people the policy OF
the Mexican war"
You say, "EXpunge from the Con
stituton this limitation upon the pow
er of Congress to suspend the writ OF
Ihaheas corpus, and yet the other
guarantees of personal liberty would
remain unchanged " Doultle~s il
this clause of The Constitution, i'm.
properly called as / think a limitation
. upon the power Of Congress, were eX
+ plunged, the other guarantees would
: renain the same; but the question IS
not how those guarantees would
{ stitu,ion. but how they stand with
that clause remaining. it, in case.
of rebellion or invasion, the putlit
safety may require it. If the liberty
J conl Z be iHdulged Of eXl unging tha
$ cl"u-e, lett r and spirit, really thinl
. the Constitutional argument would y,
, with YOU. Ny general view on thi
. question, wcs stated in the Albany =.
= spouse, and hence I a. not state !
now. only odd that, as seems e
= me. the benefit Of tic wit Of halca
@ corpus is the great means through
n which the guarantees Of personal lih
erty are conserved and made avaiahl
0 in the resort and corroboratiyc of thi
- is the fact that Mr.. Vallandigham, il
t the very case in question, under th
e advice Of very able lawyers, saw nc
/. whore else to 60 but to the hahca
s corpus. But by the Constitution tn
: hencft Of the writ OF haheas corpu
;. itself may he suspended when in case
!, ofrehellion or invasion the public safe
ty may require IT,
You ask IN substance whether ] re
: ally claim that I may override all th
!, guaranteed rights Of in iyiduals, o
i the plea of conserving the public SAFE
5, ty---whcn ! may choose TO say I'll
> public safety requires it, This que
n ton, divested Of the phraseology Gu
J culated to represent me rs strugglin
II for an arbitrary personal perogativc
is either simply question who sha
II decide, or an affirmation that nohod
L shall decide, what the public .safet
e does require in cases of rebellion c
.e Invasion. The Constitution contcm
& plates the question ns likely TO occu
II for decision, but it does not express
., ly declare who is to decide it. II
r. necessary Implication, when rcbellio
- or invasion comes, the decision is I
W be made, from time to time; and
r think the man whom, for the time, I'll
n people have, under the Constitution
i made the Commander-in- Chief Of the
al army and navy, is the man who holc
the power, and bears the responsible
ity Of making it. If he uses the po7
G. er Justly the same people win prob
oi bly, justify him; if he abuses it, he
u in their hands, to be dealt with by q
u the modes they have reserved to then
O. selves in the Constitution.
10 The eanestness with which vou il
IL sist that persons can only in times
IN rebellion be lawfully dealt with,
u, accordance with the rules for crimi
rs al trials and punishments in times
ed peace. induces me to add n word
G, what said on that point in the A
ld bany response. You claim that mt
s: may, if they choose, embarrass tho
la whose duty it is to combat giant +
IT. helion, and then be dealt with on
in turn as if there were no rebellio
Ut The Constitution itself rejects I'll
IL view. The military arrests and d
De tentions which have been made, i
Guiding those Of Mr.. Vallandighal
which Are not different in princil
ch from the other, have been for prever
W alton, and not for punshment-as /
'u' functions to stay injury--as procee
ings to keep the peace--and henc
like proceedings in such cases, al
'ee for like reasons, they have not be
accompanied with indictments, or t
i's ais by juries nor, in single case,
any punishment Whatever beyond wi
If is purely incidei til to the preventati
on The original so ltence ofimp