Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1863-07-16
THE CASE OF VALLANDIGHAM.
Reply of the President to the Ohio
Committee. '''is'-

WASHINGTON, ID. c., June 90, 1868.
GENTLEMEN: The resolutions. of the Ohio
Democratic State Convention, which you
present me, together with your Introductory
and closing remarks, being in position and
argument mainly the samea as theresolutions
OF the Democratic meeting at Albany, New
York, refer you to my response to the lat
ter as meeting most of the points in the for
her. This response you evidently used in
preparing your remarks, and desire no
more than that it be used with accuracy. In
a single reading Of your remarks, only
discovered one inaccuracy in matter which
suppose you took from that paper. 1t is
where you say, The undersigned are un.
able to agree with you in the opinion you
have expressed that the Constitution is diff.
ferent, in the time of insurrection or inva
sion from what it is in time of peace and
public security" s. lf....a.s.
A recurrence to the paper will show you
that have not expressed the opinion you
suppose. l expressed the opinion that the
Constitution is different in its application in
cases OF rebellion or invasion, Involving the
public safety, from what it is in times OF
profound 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. ,,a..a.. ... 10.
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 assumption, that opposed in dis
eussions before the people the policy of the
Mexican war" .. 7.I r.H
|. 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, fthis clause of the Constitution, i'm
properly called, as think, limitation up
on the power Of Congress-, were expunged,
the other guarantees would remain the
same, but tho 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. II the liberty could be INDUCED Of
expunging that clause, letter and spirit, l
really think tho constitutional argument
would be with you, tns .'r., ...'.a
My general view on this question was
stated in the Albany response, and hence
do no, state il now. only add that, as
seems to me, the only benefit of the writ of
habeas corpus is the great means through
which the guarantees OF personal liberty are
conserved and made available in the last re.
sort, and corroborative of this view is the
fact that Mr.. Valapdigham, in the very
case In nquestion, under the advice of able
lawyers, saw not where else to 60 but to the
habeas corpus. But by the Constitution
the benefit Of the writ Of habeas corpus
itself may be suspended when, In cases Of
rebellion and invasion, the public safety
may require it. i1
You ask, in substance, whether I really
claim that l may override all the guaran.
tied rights Of individuals, on the plea OF
choose to say the public safety requires.
calculated to represent me as struggling for
simply question ,oho shall decide, or an
affirmation that nobody shall decide what
the public safety does require in case Of re-
bellion or invasion. The Constitution con-
templates the question as likely 10 occur for
decision, but it does not expressly declare
who is TO decide it. BY necessary implica,
ton, when rebellion or invasion comes, the
devsion ID to be made, from time to time;
and think the man whom, for the time,
the people have. under the Constitution,
made the Commander.in-C Chief of their ar.
my and navy, is the man who holds the
power and bears the responsibility Of ma.
king it, II he uses the power Justly, the
same people will probably justify him; II he
abuses II, he is in their hands, 10 be dealt
with by all the modes they have reserved to
themselves Ia the Constitution. ~ 'EI
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 punishments
N dues Of peace, induces me TO add . word