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

that, at so early day as this, a claim of
the President to arbitrary power, limited
only by his conception of the require
ments of the public safety, would have
been asserted. In derogation of the con-
stitutional provisions making the Presi-
dent strictly an executive officer, and vest
ing all the delegated Legislative power in
Congress. your position, a we understand
it, would make your ,cilt the rule of action
and your declarations of the require
ments of the public safety the law of the
land. Our inquiry was not, therefore,
''simply question aoho shall decide,
what the public safety reqaires.p y Our
Government is Government of la,o, and
it is the la0-naaking -poaoer which ascer-
tains what the public safety requires, and
the duty eff the Presidentis is simply to ex-
ecute the laws thus enacted, and not to
make or annut laos. If any exigency
shall arise, the President has the power
to convene Congress at any time, to pro-
vide for it; SO that the plea of necessity
furnishes no reasonable pretsxt for any
assumption of legislative power.
For moment contemplate, the conse-
quences of such claim to power. Not
only would the dominion of the Presi-
dent be absolute over the rights of indi-
viduals, but equally so over the other de-
partments of the Government. If he
should claim that the public safety requir
ed it, he could arrest and imprison Judge
for the conscientious discharge OF his
duties, paralyze the judicial power,,or su-
percede it, by the substitution of courts
martial, subject to his oaoa qoiil, through
out the whole country. Ii any, one pof
the States, even far removed from the
rebellion, should not sustain his plan for
prosecuting the war, he could, ON the
plea of publicsafety. annul and set atsde
ianee the State laws and authorities, ar
rest and imprison the, Governor Of the
State vi tho members of the Legislature
while in the faithful discharge of their
duties, or he could absolutely control the
action, either Of Congress or of the Su-
preme Court. by arresting and imprison-
ing its members, and, upon the same
ground he could suspend the elective fran
chise, postpone the elections, and declare
the perpetuity Of his high prerogatiye
And neither the powe: of impeachment,
nor the elections of the people could be
made available against such concentration
of power, .s
Surely it is not necessary to subyert
free government in this country in order
to put down the rebellion; and it cannot
be done under the pretense of putting down
the rebellion. Indeed, it is plain that
your Administration has been weakened
and greatly weakened by the assumption
ef power not delegated in the Constitu-
ton. ip fs" 5aG ss 0i fa3 ti5e
In your answer to us you say to us
e. You claim that men may, if they choose,
embarrass those whose duty it is to CON-
bat a giant rebellion" You will fnd
yourself in fault if you search our com
municatiou to you, for any such idea.-
The undersigned believe that the Coasti-
tuition and laws of the land, properly ad-
ministerod. furnish ample power to put
down an insurrection without the assump.
ton of power not granted. And if ex-
isting legislation be inadequate, it is the
duty of Congress to consider what further
legislation is necessary, and to make suit
able provision by law. ssfLeo
You claim that the military arrests
made by your Administration, are merely
preventive remedies 'ras injunctions to
stay injury or proceedings to keep the
peace, and not for punishment The or
dina,y preventive remedies alluded to ara
authorized by established law, but the
preventive proceedings you institute have
their authority merely in the will of the
Executive or that of officers subordinate
to his authority. And in this proceeding
discretion seems to be exercised as to
whether the prisoners shall be allowed q
trial or even be permitted to, know the
nature of the complaint alleged against
him, or the name OF his aecuser. If the
proceedings be merely preventive, why
not allow the prisoner the benefit of a
bond to keep the peace z But if no Of
| fense have been committed, why was Mr.
/ Vallandigham tried, convicted and sen
fenced by court-martial 7? And why the
actual punishment by imprisonment OF
banishment, without the opportunity Of
obtainHg his liberty in the mode usua
in preventive remedies, and yet say it is
not for punishment 3 aa tSsieb ie sgs4
You still place Mr. Vallindigham's con.
viction and banishment upon the groune
that he had damaged the military service
by discouraging enlistments and encour.
Eaging dcsertions, etc., and yet you have
not even pretended to eontroyert our .po
sition that he was not charged with, trieG
or, convicted for any such otfense before
the court martial. t aslsh ssfsfo ~
In answer to our position that Mr.