The spirit of democracy. [volume] (Woodsfield, Ohio) 1844-1994, 1863-08-05

SO much as the public service may seem,
to require. I have the homer to be, re-
A. LINCOLN.
The Rejoinder Of the Com
mittee. 6aa
New YoRK CRY July, l, 1863.
To HIS Ereellency, the President of the
United States: iatf .e-e
SIR-Your answer to the application
of the undersigned for revocation OF the
roder OF banishment of Clement l.. Val
landigham requires a reply, which they
proceed with as little delay as practicable
to make. - ea8 aau bac ErH -5t
9 They ar aot able to appreciate the
force of t distinction you make, be-
ween the = tuition and the application,
of the Go Vtion, whereby you assume
that powe delegated to the President
at the til nvasion or insurrection, in
derogati he plain language OF the
ConstItut The inherent provisions
of the c tion remaining the same
in time erection or invasion, as in
time ofp she President can have no
more rig isregard their positive and
imperat! uirements at the former
time tha he latter. Because some
things H done, by the terms of the
Constitu .tithe time of invasion or
insurrect ;hich would not be required
by the occasion, in time of peace, you
assume that anything ,ohatsuer, even
though not expressed by the Constitu-
ton, may be done on the occasion of in
surrection or invasion, which the Presi-
dent may choose to say isrequired by the
public safety. In palmer terms, because
the writ of habeas corpus nav be sus-
pended at the time of invasion or in
surrection, you infer that all other
provisions Of the Constitution having
in view the protection of the life, lib
erty and property of the citizen, may be
in like manner suspended. The provision
relating to the writ of habeas corpus, be-
ing contained in the first part of the Con-
stitution, the purpose of which is to de-
fine the powers delegated to Congress, has
no connection in Language with the decla-
ration of rights, as guarantees of per-
sonal liberty contained in the additional
and amendatory articles, and inasmuch as
the provision relating to habeas corpus
expressly provides for its suspension and
the other provisions alluded to do not
provide for any such thing, the legal con-
clusion is, that the nspension of the other
is unauthorized. The provision for the
writ of habeas corpus, is mere intended to
furnish summary remedy, and not the
means whereby personal security is con-
served, in the. final resort; the other pro-
visions are guarantees of personal rights
the suspension Of which puts an end to
all pretense of free government. 1t is
true Mr.. Vallardighsm applied for a writ
of hsbeas eorEss as summary remedy
against oppression. But the denial of
this did not ta,-e away his ght to speedy
public trial b N impartial jury, or de-
prive him of eother rights as an Amer
lean citizent tour assumption of the
right to susI lall the constitutional
guarantees d ersonal liberty, and even
of the freedoLs Of speech and of the press,
because the summary remedy of habeas
corpus may be suspended, is at once
startling and alarming to all persons de-
sirous of preserving free government in
this country. 'f 6Hf @a't12
The inquiry OF the undersigned whether
i"you hold that the rights of every man
throughout this vast country, in time OF
invasion or insurrection, are subject to
be annulled whenever youn may say thatycu
consider the public safety requires it2'
was plain question, undisguised by cir
cumlocution, and intended simply to elicit
information. Your affirmative answers
TO this question throws shade upon the
fondest anticipations of the trainers of the
CONSTITUTION, who fattered themselves
that they had provided safeguards against
the dangers which have ever beset and
overthrown free government in other ages
and countries. Your answer is not to
4 be disguised by the phraseoloogy that
the question sis simply question aohc
shaR decline, oran affirmation that nobod5
shall decide what the public safety does
require in cases of rebellion or invasion.
tOur Government was designed to be a free
lGovernment Of laao, settled and defined
and not of the arbitrary will of single
msn Asa safeguard the powers were
delegated to the legislative, executive ano
judicial branches of the Government aud
leach made coordinate with tho others
and supreme within its sphere; and thu.
mutual check upon each other, in case
Iof abuse of power. 1t has been the boas
of the American people that they had ;
,oritten Constitution, net only expressly
defnino, but also limiting the powers ofths
4 iGoyernment, and providing effectual safe
guards for PERSONAL liberty, security ant
property. And to make the matter NOR,
texplicit, it was provided by the amenda
tory articles, nine and ten, that "the emu
acrasion in the Constitution of certat,
Irights, shall not be construed to deny o.
diparage others retained by the people
and that "the powers not delegated to ths
j United States by the Constitution, nsl
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved
to the States respectively or to the peo
ple." With this care and precaution OF
| the part Of cur fcrsfathsrs, WAC france