M'arthur Democrat. (McArthur, Vinton County, Ohio) 1853-1865, 1863-08-06
President LincoIn's Reply 70 the
Ohio Committee Of Nineteen, and the
Committees RejOinder.

WASHINGTON, ID. O., June "a, 1868.
GRNTLRMKN The resolutions Of
the Ohio Democratic state Conyen-
ton, which you present ne, together
with your Introductory and closing
remarks, being ih position and argn-
ment mainly the same as the resolu.
Itions Of the Democratic meeting at
Albany, New York, j refer you. to my
'tresponss TO the latter as meeting most
of the points Of Tue former This,res.'
ponse youevidently used'in preparing
your remarks, and desire no more
than that tbe used with accuracy.
In a single reading Of your remarks, |
only discovered one iDaccuracy in
matter which suppose you took from
that paper. 1t is where You say, "the
undersigned are unable to agree with
you in the opinion you have expressed
that the Constitution is different in
time OF insurrection or invasion tlom
what it is in time of peace and public
security" '.' r.''
A recurrence to the paper will show
YOU that | have not expressed the
opinion yousuppose. | expressed the
opinion that the Constitution is diff
erent an It's application in cases Of
rebellion or invasion, involving the
public safety, from what tits in times Of
profound peace aud public security /;
and this opinion l adhere to, simply
because by the Constitution itself,
things may be done in the one case
which may not be done in the other.
! dislike to waste a word on 4
merely personal point, but must res.
pectiully assure you that you will find
yourselves at fault should you ever
seek for evidence to prove your as.
sumption that "opposed in discuss
ion before the people the policy of
the Mexican war;"
You say: "Expunge from the Con.
stitution 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 efthe Constitution, i'm.
properly called as | 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 tine clause OUT Of the Oonstitu'
ton, but how they stand with that
clause remaining in it, in cases Of re,
bellion or invasion, involving the
public safety. Ii the liberty could be
indulged Of expunging that clause,
letter and spirit, | really think the
constitutional argument would be with
j you. ..,a
My general view on this question
was stated in the Albany response
and hence do not state it now.
only add that, as seems to me, the
benefit of the writ Of habeas co,pWs
is the great means through which the
guarantees Of personal liberty are con
served and made available in the las
resort; and corroborative ofthis view
is the fact that Mr.. Valladdigham il
the very case in question, under thu
advice of able lawyers, saw not where
, else to 90, but to the habeaS corpus
Bat by the Constitution the benefit o
the writ Of ha5eas corpus itself may
be suspended when in cases Of rebel
ion and invasion the public safet!
may require it. Hoi5h 81
You ask in substance whether
really claim that | may override al
the guaranteed rights Of indiyidals
on the plea of conserving the public
safety-when | may choose to 'saythC
:. public safety requires it. This ques
tion, divested OF the phraseology cal
. culated to represent me struggling fo
: an arbitrary personal prerogative, il
either simply a question WHO shai
: decide, or an affirmation that NoBoD,
shall decide, what the public safet.
does require in case of rebellion o
invasion. The Constitution contem
: plates the question as likely to occu
: tor decision, but it cces not expressl
.. declare who is to decide it. But nee
> essary implication, when rebellion o
invasion comes, the decision is to b
made, from time to time; and thin
the man whom, for the time, the peo
Pile have, under the Constitution,mad
IS the Commander-in-Ohief Of thei
. Army and Navy, is the man VIII
. holds the power and bears the respon
!. sibllity Of making it. II he uses tn
power justly, the same people vii
probably justify him /, if he abuses il
: he is in tleir hands, to be dealt wit
: by all the modes they have reserve,
to themselves in the Constitution.
" The earnestuess with which yo'
insist that persons can only in time
he of rebellion be lawfully dealt with i
t accordance with the rules for crimina
W trial and punishmentin times OF peace