The Richmond palladium. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1855-1875, 1863-07-17
Reply of the President to the Ohio
COMMITTEES.

Democratic Ssaie Convention. which you
present me- together with your introdue.o-
ry and closing remarks, being in position
and argument mainly the same the reso-
Iutions of the Democratic meeting at AL
bany, New York, refer you to my response
to the latter as meeting most of the ppints
in the former. This response you evident
ly used, 10 preparing your remarks. and
desire no more than that it be used with ac-
cnracy In single reading Of your re.
N arks, l only discovered one inaccuracv in
matter which supposed you took from that
paper. Ii Is where you say 1.-The under
signed are unable TO agree with you in the
opinion you have expressed that the Con
stitution is different in time of insurrection
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 opinion ou
suppose. l 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 pro-
found peace and tubic security and this
opinion | adhere 70. simply because by the
Consli ution Itself, things may be done in the
one case which may not be done in the other
l dislike TO waste word on . merely
personal point, but | must respectfully
assure you that you will find yourselves st
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 /" Expunse from the Consti,u-
tion this limitation upon the power of Con
g'eSs to suspend the writ Of habeas corpus.
aud yet the other guarantees Of persona!
Liberty would rsn ain unchanged Doubt.
less, il ,nis clause of the Constitution. i'm
properly called AS | think, limitation up N
the powe, OF Congress. were expung.d. the
other guarantees woali remain lhe same !;
but the question is. not how those guaran
tees would stand with tha, clause olt Of the
Constitution. but iiow rhey stand with thai
clause remaining in it, in Cases OF rebellion
or invasion. involving the puplic safety If
the liberty could be INDUCED OF expungin {
that clause, letter and spirit. | really think
the constitutional argument would be with
you.
Ny general view on this question was
stated IN tas Albany response. and hence
do not state il now. only aid that, as it
beas corpus is the great means through
which the guarantees of personal liberty are
and made available in the last re-
sort; and corroborative of this view is the
act tt at Mr.. Valaudghan. in the very case
u question, under the advice of able law
vers. saw not where else to go but to the
habeas corpus. Bat by the Constitution
the benefit of the writ of hsbeas corpus it
self may be suspended. when in cases OF
beilIon and invasion the public safety may
require it,
You ask, in substance. whether l really
claim that l may override the guaranteed
rights of individuals. oD the plea of con
serving the public safety-whep | may
choose to say the public safety requires
This question. .divest-d of the phraseoloyy
calculated TO represent me as struggling for
an arbitrary personal prerogstive, is either
simply question who shall decide, or an
sffi nation that nobody shall decide. what
the ,4ublic safety does require in cases OF le
beliion or invasion.
The Constitution contemplates the ques-
ton as likely to occur for decision, but il
does no. expressly declare who to decide
it. By necessary implication, when rebel
Ion or invasion comes. the decision is to be
made, from time to time aud think the
man whom, for the time being. the people
have. under the Constitution. made the
in chief of their army and ma
w. is the man who holds the power and
bears the responsibility of m sking it. Ii
be uses the power justly, the same people
will PR badly justify him il he abuses it.
he is in their hands to be dealt with by all
the modes they have reserved to themselves
n the Constitution.
The earnestness with which you insist
hat persons can only, in times Of rebellion.
De lawfully dealt with, 10 accordance with
he rules for criminal trials and pun!shments
u times of peace, induces me to add a word
o what said on that point in the Albany
espouse. You claim that men may, IT
hey choose. embsrrass the men whose dut,
is to combat giant rebellion, and then be
lealt with in turn as il there was no rebel
ion. The Constitution itself rejects the
new The military arrests and detentions
!, hich have been made. including those of
dr Valandigham, which are not differentin
principle from the others, have been for
and not for PUNIsHMENr--asi in
auctions to stay injary--as proceedings TO
ieep the peace--.nd hence. ik- proceed
ngs in sush cases and for like reasons. they
have not been accom- anIed with indie ments,
'r trials by juries. nor, in a single case. by
purely Incidental to the prevention. The
oris'rai sentence of imprisonment in Mr..
Naland'ghams case was to prevent injury
to the military service only. and the moditi
Cation OF It was made As a less disagreesble
mole to him OF securing the same preven
ton.
l am unable TO perceive an insult to Ohio
10 the case OF Mr.. VallandIg CHAM. Q lite
surely nothing Of this sort v as or is intend s.
ed l was wholly unaware that Mr. VAL
'andighs IN was. at the time of his arrest. a
candidate for the Democratic nomination for
Governor. until 50 informed by your read.
Ing to me the resolutions of the convention.
[ am grateful TO the State of Ohio for many
things, especially for the brave soldier, Add
officers she has given in the present narionaI
Iriai to the armies of the ULiou.
You claim. l understand, tba, .cco,,ine
10 my owu position in the Albany response,
Mr.. Vsiaod,gham should be released: and
his because, as you claim. he has no, dan.
aged the military service. by di.cosraring
saiistmsots. eneoaraging desertions, or 9TH
srw'se; and that il he bad. hs should have