The Nashville daily union. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1862-1866, 1863-07-16
The case of vaIIandlgham.
Reply Of the President to tho Ohio
Committee.

-''ii"uiuNi ~ ", q une ~, loO0,
Gentlemen: The resolutions of the
Ohio Democratic State Convention.
which you present me, together with
your Introductory and closing remarks,
being in position and argument mainly
the same as the resolutions of the Demo-
cratic meeting at Albany, New York, I
refer you TO my response TO the latter
as meeting most of the points in the for
mer. This response you evidently used
in preparing your remarks, and desire
no more than that il be used with accu-
racy. In single reading of your re
marks, | only discovered one inaccuracy
in matter which | suppose you took from
that paper, IL is where you say, "The
undersigned are unable 10 agree with
you in the opinion you have expressed
that the Constitution is different in time
ofinsurreotion or invasion from what il
is in time of peace and public security"
A recurrence TO the paper will show
you that have not expressed the opin-
ion you Suppose. expressed the opin-
ION that The Constitution is different in
IT'S application in cases of rebellion or in
vasion, involving the public safety, from
what IT is in times of profound peace
and public security and this opinion I
adhere to, simply because by the Con-
stitution itself things may be done in
the one case which may not be done in
the other.
L dislike to waste o word on a merely
personal point, but L must respectfully
assure you that you will find yourself
at fault should you ever seek for evil
dence 10 prove your assumption, that
opposed in discussions before the people
the policy of the Mexican war;"
You say: "Expunge from the Consti-
tuition this Limitation upon the power of
Congress to suspend the writ of haJeas
corpus, and yet the other guarantees of
personal liberty would remain un-
changed" Doubtless, if this clause of
the Constitution, improperly called, as
think, limitation upon the power of
Congress, were expunged, the other guar
antees would remain the same; but the
question is, not how these guarantees
would stand with that clause out of The
Constitution, but how they stand with
that clause remaining in it, in cases of
rebellion or invasion, involving the pub
lie safety. Ii the liberty could be in
dulged of expunging that clause, letter
and spirit, really think the cOnstitu.
tional argument would be with you.
My general view on this question was
stated 10 the Albany response, and hence
do not state il now. only add that,
as seems TO me, the benefit Of the writ
Of huJeas corpus is the great means
through which the guaratees of personal
liberty are conserved and made avail
able in the last resort, and corrO borstive
OF this view is the tact that Mr.. Vallan-
digham, in she very case in question,
under the advice of able lawyers, saw
not where else to go but TO the habeas
corpus. But by the Constitution the
benefit of the writ of haJeas corpus itself
may be suspended when, in cases of re-
bellion and invasion, the public safety
may require il.
You ask, in substance, whether real
ly claim that may override all the
guaranteed rights of individuals, on the
plea of conserving the public safety
when may choose TO say the public safe
~ requires. This question, divested of
the phraseology calculated to represent
me as struggling for as arbitrary per-
sonal prerogative is either simply ques-
tiOn i0ho shall decide, or an affirmation
that melody shall decide, wha. the public
safety does reqdire in cases of rebellion
or invasion. The Constitution contem-
plates the question as likely to occur for
decision, but it does not expressly de-
clare who is to decide it, BY necessary
implication, when rebellion or invasion
comes, the decision is TO be made, from
time 10 time; and think the man whom,
for the time, the people have, under the
Constitution, made the commander-in-
chief Of their army and navy, is the man
who holds the power aud bears the re-
sponsibility OF making il. II he uses
the power justly, the same people will
probably Justify him; if be abuses a.
he is in their hand, TO be dealt with by
all the modes they have reserved "a
themselves in tho Constitution.
The earnestness with which you in
sist that persons can only, in times oI
rebellion, be lawfully dealt with, In ac-
cOrdance with the rules for crimina
trials and punishments in times of peace
induces me to add word TO what saio
on that point ia the Albany response
You claim that men may, If they choose
embarrass those whose duty it is /,
combat giant rebellion and then b'
dealt with only in turn as if there wert
no rebellion. The Constitution itself re
Jects this view. The military arrestI
and detentions which have been made
including those of Mr. Ysllandigham
which are not different in principle from
the other, have been for prevention, anC
not Tor PulishDlsnt--as iniuncti0ns TO stay
injury, as proceedings 10 keep the pesc'
and hence. like the proceedings in sucl
cases and for like reasons they have no
been accompanied with indictments, o
trials by juiies, nor IN single case, b.
any punishment whatever beyond Wha
ia nnrelH incidental 20 the nreYnntinn