Ashtabula weekly telegraph. [volume] (Ashtabula, Ohio) 1853-1873, 1863-07-18
vs1iandigham Cosspsfttee-Rcply OF presi
dent Lii 10 oin. 10. . .f..
s.a '1 wAsurSeros, d. O., Jobe 70, 1853
Messrs. Burchard and Others. ci1sfr@

|
GENrLExES: The resolutions Of the Ohio
Democratic State Convention, which you
present me, together with your introduc.
tion and closing remarks, being in position
and argument mainly the same ss the resoI
lutions of the democratic meeting at Al.
bany, New York. refer yon TO my res
ponsc to the latter as meeting most of the
points in the former. This response you
evidently used in preparing your remarks,
and l desire no more than that il be, used
with accuracy. In single reading Of your
remarks, / only discovered one inaccuracy
in matter which I suppose you took from
the paper. 1t Is where you say. "Phe IN.
dersigned are unable to agree with iyon 10
the opinion you have expressed that the
Consultation is different in times Of insur.
rection or invasion from what it is in time
ofpeace and public security" A recurrence
to the paper viii show you Ihat have
not expressed the opinion you suppose. /
expressed the opinion that the Constitution
is different IN its application in cases of
rebellion or invasion, involving the public
safety, from what it is in time of peace and
public security; and this opinion l adhere
to, simply because by the Constitution it.
self things may be done in the one case
which may not be done in the other. g
| dislike to waste word on merely
personal point, but must respectfully as.
sure You that you will fad yourselves nj
fault should you ever seek for evidence to
prove your assumption that / opposed III
discussion before the people the policy Of
the Mexican war, ~. ...-.T
You soy expunge from the Consultation
this limitation upon the power of Congress
to suspend the writ of aabeds corpus. aud
yet the other guarantees of personal liberty
would remain unchanged ;, Doubtless il
this clause Of the Constitution, improperly
called as j think limitation upon the
power of Congress, we're expunged. the
other guarantees would remain the same !;
but the question is, not how those guaran-
tees would remain the same; but the ques-
tion is, not how those guarantees would
stand. With that clause out of the Constitu.
tion. but how they stand with that clause re-
naming in it, in case Of rebellion or inva,
sion Involving the public safety. Ifthe
liberty could be INDUCED of expungng that
clause, letter and spirit, l really think the
constitutional argument would be with
you. My general view on this question
was stated in the Albany response, aud
hence do not state it nov. / only add
that as seems to me. the benefit Of the
| writ Of habsas corpus is the great means
| through which the guarantees Of personal
! liberty are conserved and made avaiiabi
in the last resort; and cOrroborative of this
view is the fact that Mr. Valandigham
in the very case 10 question:, under The
advice OF able lawyers, saw not where else
to 60 but to the habeas corpus. But by
| the Constitution the benefit 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 / really
claim that may override all the guaran
teed rights of individuals, on the plea oi
conserving the public safety--when may
choose to say the public safety requires it
This question, divested of the phraseology
calculated TO represent me as struggling fol
au arbitrary personal prerogative, is eithe'
simply question schO shall decide, or at
afli nation that nobody shall decide, wha,
the public safety does require in cases 5ol
| ICuCinou VI iuNooiOu. 4uC .OehS6tuttou
contemplates the qnestion'a as likely TO occur
for decision. but it does net expressly de.
clare who is to 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
| Constitutions, made the Commauder.in Chief
Of their army aud navy, is the man who
holds the power and bears the responsible
lity making it. If he uses the power just
ly, the same people will probably Justify
him if he abuses it, he is in their, hands,
to be dealt with by all the modes they have
reserved TO themselves in the Constitution.
The earnestness with which you insis,
that persons can orly in time Of rebellion
be lawfully dealt with, in accordance with
the rules for criminal trials and punish
ments iu time Of peace, induces me to ado
q word TO what said on that point In the
Albany response You claim that mer
may, if they choose, embarrass those whose
duty it is to combat against rebellion, anG
then be dealt with only it turn, as if there
we're no rebellion. The Constitution itsel
rejects this view The military arrests and
ueLe0tlOuS WHICH udfo Uccu uuuo, tuCIuufuR
those of Mr. Vallandigham, which are mol
different in principle from the other. have
been for prersatioa. and not for punishment
-as injunctions TO stay injnry--as pro
ceedings to keep the peace--and hence
like proceedings in such cases. and for lik,
reasons, they have not been accompanied
1 with indictments, or trials by juries, nor
in siugls case, by any punishment what
ever beyond what is purely incidental Il
the prevention. The original sentenc,
| of imprisonment in Mr.. Vsllandigham'
case, was to prevent injury to the military
service only, aud the modification OF it wal
made as less dissgreeable mode 10 him o
securing the same preyen,ion, f..gs, .r6 I.
j / am unable to perceive an insult ,s
4 Ohio in the case Of Mr.. Vallandigham
Quite surely nothing Of the sort was or 1
in'ended. was wholly unaware that Mr.
Vullandighsm was, at the time Of bis ar
rest, candidate for the Democratic nomi
nation for Governor, until so informed b!
u your reading to me the resolutions of th,
4 Convention. / am grateful to the State 0
Ohio for many things, especially for th