Raftsman's journal. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1854-1948, 1863-07-15
VALLANDIGHAM'S CASE.
Reply Of the President to the Ohio Demo-
cratic Committee


| sent me, together with your Introductory anC
closing remarks, being in position and argu
| ment mainly the same as the Resolutions o.
the,Democratic meeting, at Albany New York
! | refer you to my response to the latter a:
| meeting most of he points in the former
! This response you evidently used in preparing
| your remarks, and desire no more than tha
| 1t be used with accuracy. In single reading
| of your remarks, only discovered one mac
cnracy in matter, which 1 suppose you took
from that paper. 1t is where you say. "The
undersigned ale unable to agree with you in
the opinion you have expressed that the Con-
stituton is different in time of insurrecton
or invasion from what it is in time Of peace
and public security
y recurrence to the paper will show you
that have not expressed the opinion You cup
pose. l expressed the opinion that the Con
sttntion. is different in its application in ca
ses of rebellion or invasion involving the pub
lie safety, from'what it is in times of profound
peace and public security and this opinion
adhere TO, simply because by the Consttu-
tion itself, things may be done in the one case
which may not be done in the other
l dislike to waste word on a merely per-
sonai point, but must respectfully assure
you that you will find yourselves at fault
should you ever seek for evidence to prove
your assumption that .sopposed in discus
Sions before the people the policy of the Mex
ican war;
You say: ''Expunge from the Constitution
this limitation upon the power OF Congress to
suspend the writ of habeas corpus, and yet the
other guarantee of personal liberty would re.
main nnchanged.'' Doubtless if this CLAUSE, of
the Constitution, improperly called as l think
limitation upon 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 oUr
Of the Constitution but how they stand with
that clause remaining in it, in cases of rebel
lion or invasion, involving the public safety.
If the liberty could be INDUCED of expunping
that clause, letter and spirit, really think
the constitutional argument would be ith YOU.
My general view on this question was stated
IN the Albany response, and hence do not
state 1t now. | only add that, as seems to me,
the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus is the
great means through which the guarantees of
personal liberty are conserved and made avail.
able in the last resort and corroborative of |
this view, is the fact, that Mr.. Vallandig- |
nam, in the very case in question under the |
advice of lawyers saw not where else to 90 bnt |
to the habeas corpus. But by the Constitu-
lion the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus it |
self may be suspended when in cases of rebel |
lion and invasion, the public afety NAV re- |
4uire it.
You ask in substance whether really claim |
hat may override all the guaranteed rights
of individuals, on the plea of conserving the /
public safety-when may chose to say the
onblic safety requires it. This question. di-
vested of the phraseology calculated to repre-
tent me as struggling for an arbitrary personal
'rerogatve, is either simply question pho
hall decide, or affirmation that nobody shall
iecide, what the public safety does require in
Eases of rebellion or invasion. The Constitu-
ion contemplates the question as likely to
'ccur for decision, but it does not expressly
eclare who is to decide it. By necessary i'm
'licatol, when rebellion or invasion comes
he decision is to be made, from time to time
nd think the man whom, for the time the
eople have, under the Constitut ion made the
Chief of their Army and Ma
y, is the man who holds the power and bears
he responsibility of making it. If he uses
he power Justly. the same people will proba-
ly justify him if he abuses il, he is in their
ands, to be dealt with BY all the modes they
ave reserved to themselves in the Constitu-
ion.
The earnestness with which you insist that
ersons can only in times of rebellion be law
ully dealt with in accordance with the rules
or criminal trials and punlshments in times
f peace, induces me to add word to what
aid on that point in the Albany response. ,
'ou claim that men mar, if they choose, en-
arrass those whose duty it is to combat gi-
mt rebellion and then be dealt with only in
urn if there were no rebel lion. The Consti-
ltion itself rejects this view. The military
rrests and deteD.ions which have been made
1cluding those of Mr.. Vallandigham, which
re not different in principle from the other,
ave been for Prevention, and not for Punish
ent-as injunctions to stay injury-as pro-
,edings to keep the peace-and hence, like
in such cases and for like res
ms, they have not been accompanied with in
ctments, or trials by juries, nor, in single
ase, By any punishment whatever beyond
hat is purely incidental to the prevention.
be original sentence of imprisonment in Mr.. G
allandigham' s case was to prevent injury to d
e military service only ,and the modification y