Cleveland morning leader. [volume] (Cleveland [Ohio]) 1854-1865, 1863-07-09
THI- nIsFnF YDLLANpIGHAaI.
Reply of President Lincoln 70 the OAle
COmnIittce.
ru..,.rrnrn,- D. c. June %, 1868.


.Hanzo P. Noble, James R. Morris, W.
A. Hutchins, Abner L. Bsckus, J. F. Nc
Kinney, P. C. LeBlond, Louis Schsefer:
GENTLEMEN The resolutions of the Ohio
Democratic State Convention, which you
presentme, together with your Introductory
and closing remarks, being in position and
argument mainly the came as the resolu-
tion Of the Democratic meeting at Albany,
n. Y, refer you TO my response to the
latter as meeting most Of the points of the
former. This response you evidently used
in preparing your remarks and desire
no more than that it be used with accura-
cy. In single reading of your remarks,
[ only discovered one insccuIacy in matter
which 1 suppose you took from that paper
Il is where you say: The undersigned
are unable 10 agree with you in the opin-
ion YOU have expressed that the Constitu-
ton is different in time of insurrection or
invasion from what it is in time Of peace
and public security" A recurrence to the
paper will show you that 1 have not
expressed the opinion you suppose
l expressed the opinion that the Con-
stitution is different in is application in
cases of rebellion or invasion, involving
the public safety, from what it is in times
of profound peace and public security
and this opinion 1 adhere to, simply be-
cause by the Constitution itself, things
may be done in the one case which may
not be done in the other.
personal point, out nuoC rosPCOVl.---y
sure YOU that you will find yourselves at
fault should you ever seek for evidence to
prove your assumption that Opposed in
discussion before the people the policy of
the Mexican war"
You say: "Expunge from the COnstitu-
ton this Limitation on the power OF Con-
press to suspend the writ Of habsas corpus,
and vet the other guarantees Of personal
liberty would remain unchanged" Doubt
less if this clause of the Constitution, i'm
properly called as l think q limitation up
on the power of Congress, were expunged,
the other guarantees would remain the
same; but the question is, not how those
guarantees would stand, with that clause
out of the Constitution, but how they stand
with that clause remaining in it, in cases
of rebellion OF invasion, involving the
public safety. If the liberty could be in
dulged Of expunging that clause, letter and
spirit really think the constitutional ar
gument would be with you. Ny general
view on this question was stated in the
Albany response, and hence I do not state
it now. l only add that, ss seems to me,
| the benefit of the writ of kdbezs corpus is
| the great means through which the guar
antees Of personal liberty are conserved
| and made available in the last resort; and
! eorroborative of this view is the fact that
Mr.. Vallandigham, in the very case in
| question, under the advice Of able lawyers,
saw not where else to go but to the hGbeaS
corpus. But by the Constitution, the bene
| fit Of the writ of habeas corpus itself may be
| suspended when in cases of rebellion or
invasion the public safety may require it.
You ask in substance whether 1 really
! claim that may override all the gradus-
| ted rights of individuals, on the plea of
conserving the public safety-when l may
choose to say the public safety requires it.
/ This question, Invested Of the phraseology
calculated 10 represent me as struggling
| for an arbitrary prerogative, is either sim
| ply a question lOhO shall decide, or an afhr-
nation that nobody shall decide, what the
public safety does require in cases of re-
bellion or invasion. The Constitution
contemplates the question as likely to oc-
| cur lUL uEGlblU4lT Bub ~ uObb nOb ca plCbblJ y
/ declare who is 10 decide it. By necessary
implication, when rebellion or invasion
comes, the decision is to be made, from
| time to time, and think the man whom,
for the time, the people have, under the
! Constitution, made the Commander in
Chief Of our army and navy, is the man
who holds the power and bears the re-
sponHbility Of making it. If he uses the
power justly the same people will probably
justify him; if he abuses it, he is in their
hands, to be dealt with by sll the modes
they have reserved to themselves in the
Constitution.
The earnestness with which you insist
that persons can only in times of rebellion
be lawfully dealt with, in accordance with
the rules for criminal trials and punish
ments in times Of peace, induces me to add
a word to what 1 said on that point in the
Albany response. You claim that men
may, if they choose, embarrass those whose
duty it is to combat a giant rebellion, and
then be dealt with only in turn as if there
were no rebellion. The Constitution it.
self rejects this view. The military ar
rests and detentions which have been made
| including those Of Mr. Vallandigham,
which are not different in principle from
the other, have been for prevention, and
not for punishment-as iDjunctions to
stay iDjury-as proceedings to keep the
peaoe-snd hence, like proceedings in
such cases, and for like reasons they have
not been accompanied with indictments,
or trials by juries, nor, in a single case,
by any punishment whatever beyond what
is purely incidental to the prevention
The original sentence Of imprisonment in
Mr.. Vallandigham's case was to prevent
injury to the military service only, and
the modification of it was made as a less
disagreeable mode to him Of securing the
same prevention.
am unable to perceive an insult to
Ohio in the case Of Mr.. Vallandigham.-
Quite surely nothing of the sort was or is
intended. l was wholly unaware that Mr..
Vall6ndighem was, at the time of his ar
rest, candidate for the Democratic nomi-
nation for Governor, until so informed by
your reading to me the resolutions Of the
Convention l am grateful to the State of
Ohio for many things, especially for the
brave soldiers and officers she has given in
the present national trial to the armies Of
the Union.
You claim, as I understand, that accord
ing to my own position in the Albany re-
sponse, Mr.. Vallandigham should be re-
leased; and this, because, as you claim, he
has not damaged the military service by
discouraging enlistments, encouraging de-
sertions, or otherwise; and that if he had
he should have been turned over to civil
authorities, under recent acts Of Congress.
1 certainly do not knonO that Mr.. Val
lsndigham has specially and by direct Ian
gusge advised against enlistments, and in
favor Of desertiOn and resistance to draft
ing. We all know that combinations, arm
ed in some instances, to resist the arrest
Of deserters, began several monthsEago: