The Ashland union. [volume] (Ashland, Ashland County, Ohio) 1854-1868, 1863-07-22
THE REPLY OF THE PRESIDENT.

LOUIS sCHAEFER, 18th Dist
THE REPLY OF THE PRESIDENT.
WAsHiNaToN, D. c., June %, 1868.
GENTLEMEN The resolutions of the Ohio
Democratic State Convention, which you pre-
sent me, together with your Introductory and
closing remarks, being in position and argu
ment mainly the same as the resolutions OF.
the Democratic meeting at Albany, New York,
L refer you to my response to the latter
meeting most of the points of the former
This response you evidently used in preparing
YOUR remarks, and desire no more than that
it be used with accuracy. In single reading
IF your remarks, I only discovered oneinaccurs-
cy i ! matter which suppose you took from that
paper. 1t is where you say, 'sthe undersign
ed are unable to agree with you 10 the opin-
ion you have expressed that the Constitution
is different in ii of insurrection or invasion
from what it is in time of peace and public
security" -oE ssisfat
A recurrence to the paper will show you
that have not expressed the opinion you sup
pose 1 expressed the opinion that the Con
stitution is different in its application in case
of rebellion o. invasion, involving the public
safety, from what it is in times of profound
peace and public security; and this opinion l
odhere 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 word on merely per-
sonal point, but must respectfully assure you
that you will find yourselves at fault should
you ever seek for evidence to prove your as
| sumption that "opposed in discussion before
the people the policy Of the Mexican war
| You say "Expunge from the Constitution
this limitation upon the power of Congress to
suspend the writ of ha6eas corpus, and yet the
other guarantees of personal liberty would re-
main unchanged" Doubtless If this clause of
the Constitution, improperly called as 1 think
!, limitation upon the power of Congress, were
| lexpunged, then the other guarantees would re-
main the same but the question is, not how
those guarantees would stand with the clause
/ OUT of the Constitution, bat bow they stand
with that clause remailing in it, involving the
public safety. IF the liberty could be indulg-
ed of expunging that clause, letter and spirit,
| I really think the constitutional argument
| would be with you a2
NV general view on this question was sta
ted in the Albany response, end hence do
no; state it now [ only add that, as7seems to
me. the benefit of the writ of hnbeas corpus,
is the great means through which the guaran-
tees of PERSONAL liberty are conserved and
j made available in the lasI resort and corroo,
oratiye of this view, is the fact, that Mr.. Val
I.landigham in the very case in question: under
1.-THE advice of able lawyers, saw not where else
to co. but to the ha6eas corpus. But by the
| Constitution the benefit of the writ of hd6eas
corpus itself may be suspended when IN cases
lof rebellion or invasion the public safety may
require it.
Ethat l may override all the guarai teed
4 rights of individuals on the plea of conserv-
l ing the public safety-when / may choose to
saw the public safety requires it. This ques
ton, divested of the phraseoloey calculated tc
represent me as struggling for an arbitrary
personal prerogatve, is either simply a ques
ton acho shall decide, or an affirmation tha
nobody shall decide, what the public safety
does require in case of rebellion or invasion
The Constitution contemplates the question az az
likely to occur for decision, but 1t does no
expressly declare who is to decide it By nee
essary implication, when rebellion or invasion
comes the decision is to be made, from time
to time and I think the man whom, for the
time, the people have, under the Const tuition
made the Com misunderstanding of their Army
and Navy, is the man who holds the power
and bears the responsibility of making It. L
e uses the power justly, the same people vii
probably justify him If be abuses 1t, he lsir
their hands, to be dealt with by all the modes
they have reserved to themselses in the Con
stitutiJn. Eazn 81
The earnestness with which you insist tha
persons can only in times of rebe lion be law
fully dealt with, in accordance With the rule
fer criminal trials and punishments in time
of peae e, induces me to add word to what
sad on that point in the Albany response
, You claim that men may, if they choose, EN-
barrass thos- whose duty it is to combat g
ant rebellion and then be dealt with only IL
turn as if there were no rebellion IT The Con,
/ stitution itself rejects this view. The militia
ry arrests and detentions which have bee
made, including those of Mr.. Vallandighan
> which are not different in principles from tn
: other, have been for PREVENTION, and nc
> for p1NIsHMENT-as iujunctions to stay IN
4 jury-as proceedings to keep the peace-,alnI
hence, like proceeding in such Ss cases and t
: with indictments, or trials by jury, nor, In
E single case, by any punishment whatever b
yond what is purely Incidental !. to the preyen
o ton. The original sentence of imprisopIneI
4 in Mr. Vallandigham's case was to prevent II
: Jury to the military service only, and the mot
e ification of it was made as less disagreeab
+ mode to him Of securing the same prevention