The Burlington weekly hawk-eye. [volume] (Burlington [Iowa]) 1860-1876, 1863-07-11
MIR. LINCOLN ON MR.. vALLA N.
DI(SHAM.
The REPLY OF THE PRESIDENT TO THE
APPLICATION OF THE OHIO COMMITTEE
roR THE RELEASE OF vALLANDIGHAM.

TIE REPLY OF THE PRESIDENT TO THE
APPLICATION OF THE OHIO COMMITTEE
FOR THE RELEASE OF vALLANDIGHAM.
WASHINGTON, d. c., July S, 1868.
GENTLEMEN: The resolutions of the
Ohio Democratic State Convention, which
You present me, together with your intro
ductory and closing remarks, being in po-
sition and argument mainly the same as
the resolutions of the Democratic meet
ING at Albany, New York, refer you to
nv response to the latter as meeting most
ofthe points in the latter. This response
YOU evidently used in preparing your re-
marks, and desire no more than that it
be used with accuracy. In a single read
ing of your remarks, only discovered one
inaccuracy in matter which suppose you
took from that paper, it 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
instruction or invasion 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 that
the constitution in different in It's GppIicd-
ton in cases of rebellion or invasion, in
volving the public safety from what it is
in time of peace and 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 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
the discussion before the people of the pol
icy Of the Mexican war;"
You say, "Expunge from the constitu-
ton this limitation upon the power OF Con-
gress to suspend the writ of habeas corpus,
and yet the other guarantees of personal
liberty would remain unchanged" Doubt
less if this clause of the constitution inn
properly called, as / think, a limitation
upon the power Of Congress, were expung-
ed the other guarantees would remain 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 in it, in cases of
rebellion or invasion. involving the public
safety. If the liberty could be INDUCED
of expunging that clause, letter and spirit,
/ really think the constitutional argument
would be with you.
NV general view on this question was
stated in the Albany response, and hence I
do not state it now. l only add that, as
seems to me, the benefit of the writ of ha-
beas corpus is the great means through
which the guarantees of personal liberty
are conserved and made available in the
last resort; and corroborative Of this view
is the fact that Mr.. Vallandigham, in the
very case in question, under the advice of
able lawyers, saw not where else to go but
to the habeas corpus. But by the constitu-
ton, the benefit of the writ of habeas cor
pus itself, may be suspended when in cases
of rebellion and invasion, the public safety
may require.
You ask in substance whether I really
claim that 1 may override all the guaran
teed rights of individuals on the plea of
conserving the public safety-when l may
choose to say the public safety requires it.
This question, Invested of the phraseology
calculated to represent me as struggling
for an arbitrary personal prerogative, is
either simply a question who shall decide,
or an affirmative that nobody shall decide,
what the public safety does require in ca
ses of rebellion or invasion. The cOnStitu
ton contemplates the question as likely to
occur 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 the consti
tuition, made the Communicating Chief of
their army and navy, is the man who holds
the power and bears the responsibility of
making it, If he uses the power justly, the
same people will probably justify him; if
he abuses ii, 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 times 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
Albany response. You claim that men
may, if they choose, embarrass those whose
duty it is to combat giant rebellion, and
then be dealt with only in turn as ii there
were no rebellion. The Constitution itself
ft,is SIC, MD
detention which have been made, includ-
ing that of Mr.. Vallandigham, which is not
different in principle from the others, have
been tor prevention, and not for punish
ment-as injunctions 10 stay injury-as
proceedings to keep the peace-and hence,
like proceedings i'll 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 what
ever beyond what is purely Incidental to
the prevention. The original sentence of
Imprisonment in Mr.. Vallandigham's case
was to prevent in ury 10 the military SER
vice only, and the modification OF it was
made as a less disagreeable mode 10 him Of
securing the prevention.
am unable to perceive an insult to Ohio
in the case of Mr.. Vallandigham. Quite
surely nothing Of this sort is or was in
tended. / was wholly unaware that Mr..
Vallandigham was, at the time Of his ar
rest, a candidate 1or the beNtOCr3Ilc OOlfli-
nation for Governor, until so informed by
your reading to me the resolutions OF the
Convention. / am grateful to the State of
Ohio for many things, especially for The
brave soldiers and officers she has given to
The present national trial for the armies of
the Union.
You claim. as understand, that accor-
ding to my own position III the Albany re-
Spouse, Mr.. Nallandigham should be re-
leased, and this because, as you claim, he
has not damaged the military service by
discouraging enlistments, encouraging de-
sertions, or otherwise; and that if he had,
ne should have been turned over to the
civil authorities under the recent acts of
Congress. ! certainly do know that
Mr.. Nallandigham has specifically and by
direct language, advised against enlist
ments and in favor OF desertion and resist
ance to drafting. We all know that com
binations. armed in some instances. to re-
sist the arrest of deserters, began several
months ago; that more recently the like
has appeared in resistance to the enroll
ment preparatory to a draft; and that quite
a number of assassinations have occurred