Daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, Va. [W. Va.]) 1859-1865, 1863-07-09
Reply OF tho President to the Ohio
VsIIandIgham CommIttee.

V9lIandIghRm Committee
WASHINGTON. June %. 1868.
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 resolu'
lions of the Democratic meeting at Albany,
New York, l refer you to nay response 10
the latter as meeting most of the points in
the former. This response you evidently
used in preparing your remarks, and de-
sire no more than IL be used with accuracy.
! In a single reading of your remarks,
| only discovered one inacuracy in matter
which suppose you took from that paper.
| II is where you say, " The undersigned are
unable to agree with you in the opinion
you have expressed that the Constitu ton
is different in time of instruction or inya-
sion from what it is in time of peace and
public security"
A recurrence to the paper will show you
that 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 times
| of profound peace and public security; aud
this opinion | adhere to. simply because
by the Constitution itself, things may be
done in the one case which may not be
| done in the other.
! l dislike to waste a word on merely
| personal point, but must respectfully as
| sure you that you will find yourselves at
fault should you ever seek for evidence to
prove your assumption that opposed in
discussions before the people the policy of
the Mexican war"
You say: Expunge from the COnstitu-
ton this Limitation upon the power of
| Congress to suspend the writ of habeas
corpus, and yet the other guarantees of
personal liberty would remain unchanged"
Doubtless, if this clause of the Constitu
ton, improperly called, as l think, linn
itation upon the power of Congress, were
expuuged, the other guarantees would re-
\ main 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 10
| it, in cases of rebellion or invasion, involV-
ing the public safety. If the liberty could
be INDUCED of expunging that clause, let
ter and spirit, really think the constitu-
tional argument would be With you.
Ny general view ON this question was
stated in the Albany response, and hence
do not state it now. l ouly 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 available in the
last resort; aud corroborative of this view
/ is the fact that Mr.. Vallaudigham, in the
very case in question, under the advice of
able lawyers saw not where else to go but
to the habeas corpus. Bat by the Consti
ton the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus
itself may be suspended, when IN cases of
rebellion and invasion the public safety
may require it.
You ask, in substance. whether really
claim that ] may override all the guaran-
tied rights of individuals, on the plea of
conserving the public safety-When may
choose to say the public safety requires.
This question, Invested of the phraseology
calculated to represent me as struggling
for an arbitrary personal prerogstive, is
either simply question lrho sh Ill decide.
or an affirmation that nobody shall decide,
what the public safety does require in cases
of rebellion or invasion. The Constitution
contempIstes the question as likely to oc-
cur for decision, but it does not expressly
declare 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 he
Constitution, made the commander in chief
of their army and navy, is the man who
holds the power and bears the responsible.
ity of making it. If he uses the power
/ JUSTLY Nbo PSOPlS WIN PAOSdolS JUS
tify 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 insist
that persons can only, in ti.Ies 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 said on that point in the
A II Al.
may, if they choose, embarrass those whose
duty it is to combat giant rebellion and
then be dealt with only in turn as If there
were no rebellion. The Constitution itself
rejects this view. The military arrests
and detentions which have been made, |
| including those of Mr.. Vallandigham, |
which are not different in principle from |
the other, have been for PREVENTION, aud |
| not for PUHIsHMBNT-as injunctions to |
sny injury,-as proceedings to keep the |
peace-and 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.. Valiandighams case was to prevent |
injury to the military service only, and |
| the modification of it was made as less |
disagreable mode to him of securing the |
same prevention.
1 am unable to perceive an insult to Ohio |
in the case of Mr.. Vallandigham. Quite |
surely nothing of this sort was or is intend.
ed. was wholly unaware that Mr.. VAL
landigham was, at the time of his arrest,
candidate for the Democratic nomination
of Governor, until SO Informed by your
reading to me the resolutions of the Con-
veution. am grateful to the State ofOhio
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 understand, that accord.