Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1863-06-18
THE vALLAsDroHAM HABrAs CORPUS CASE.
FOR THE NATIONAL INTELLIGEs Err.

FOR THE NATIONAL INTEILIGEN, Err.
| Messrs EDITORS: Some days since my attention was
called to two editorials Of different dates in your paper
with severity upon tho proceedings had be-
fore the United States Circuit Court for the southern dis
trict of Ohio in the matter of the petition Of Clement
Valandigham foi writ Of habeas corpus. You made
part of one of those articles communication which you
certified to as coming from distinguished Northern u
rist The articles are before me, but suppose
can rely upon my recollection for the substance Of them
understand other articles have appeared which have
not seen
Your attack upon his Honor Judge LEAvITT was un-
sparing 1t is perhaps incumbent on me, as member oil
the bar Of his court who took part in the discussion and
therefore speak with knowledge, to relieve him from
the mistake under which you and your legal
labor As the correctness ncorrectness Of his dec
sion have made my argument, and that rest But
whether his decision be right wrong your attack upon
him groundless 1t based upon supposed facts which
had no existence You suppose that he made his decson
without reading the act Of March g. 1863, and that he
acted under impression that the Presidents proclama
ton Of September a. 1862 suspendng habeas corpus wal
yet n force and justified him in refusing the writ No
thing can be further from the truth.
NY connexion with the case did not commence until ga.
turday evening but informed what took place befo-e
The application for babeas corpus 6rst made Sa.
turday morning. Counsel for the petitioner then called
attention to the act of March g. 1863 and the Judge
marked that his attention had not before been called to it,
and he had not read it, Mr. District Attorney Ball said
that he had authority to represent Cen Burnside but
officer and friend of the court he suggesedtbat Gen.
Burnside have notice of the proceeding and have leave to
make such representation ne should wish, II any In
accordance with this suggestion, the hearing of the app
cation was postponed until Monday morning.
Meanwhile his honor had full time to examine the act
referred to- and did examine it, Counsel for petitioner
also had time but whether he made further examination
that he could bring his within that act would have
defeated his application He did not in his argument
claim or admit that the arrest Of his client covered
provided for by that act but did claim that it not
covered by the act Counsel for Gen Burnside admitted
that the act did not apply to that and 80 his Honor
not called to decide whether it did or not have
learned however, since the decision that bis examination
of the act led him to the conclusion which had been
arrived at by counsel on both sides.
The Presidents proclamation of September "A, 1862,
not relied upon by counsel for Gen Burnside The
line Of argument had chosen to adopt admitted the
right of habeas corpus to be in full force and apPca-
ton and to be entitled to the same Difference aud
respect habualy given it in court of justice We
claimed that the facts stated n the petition, together with
the facts Of public history, of which the court bound
to take Judicial notice. showed the arrest to be lawful
that there nooccason and it not correct practice
to defendant in habeas corpus to state facts In his
which already sufficiently before the court
that this application should be treated like all other app
cations hsbeas corpus and the writ refused the
rest appears to be valid one.
You will perceive, therefore, that you and your legal
correspondent under mistake. If Judge LEAvTT
had dne and omitted the things for which denounced
him. he may may not have been deserving OF repr0ba-
ton 1t will be time consider that when It shall happen
Very respectfully, AARON F. PERRY.