Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1863-07-11
CHE Obio 5tatesnra,r

rlf. I.r ~ -
President Lincoln's Reply to the Obi,
Committee Of Nineteen, and the Com
mittee's Rejoinder.
We have already printed the paper addresse,
to the President Of the UDited States BY In,
Ohio committee Of Nineteen, demanding th,
return OF Mr.. VALLANDIaHAM from exile. Be.
low we publish the Presidents reply and th,
committee's rejoinder.
THE REPLY or THE PRESIDENT.
| WARRINGTON, D. c., June 80, 1863.
i GEHTLEMEN the resolutions of the Ohit
Democratic State Convention, which you pre-
sent me, together with your Introductory ant
closing remarks, being In position and argu-
ment mainly the same 90 the resolutions Of The
Democratic meeting at Albany, New York,
refer you 10 myAsegponge to the latter ns meet
1 Ing most Of the points Of the former. Thi,
response you evidently used In preparing youI
remarks, and desire no more than that Il be-
used with accuracy. In o single reading Of
your remarks, only discovered one inaccaracy
In matter which suppose You took from that
paper. IL Is where you cay, "the undersigned
are unable to agree with you In the opinion you
have expressed that the Constitution Ia differ
ent In time Of insurreotion or invasion from
what IL is In time OF peace and public security"
A recurrence to the paper will show you that
| have not expressed the opinion you suppose.
/ expressed the opinion that the Constitution is
different in ito application In cases of rebellion or
invasion, involving the public safety, from what
Il is In times Of profound peace and public Sc
curity; and this opinion adhere to, simply be-
cause by the Constitution itself, things may be
done In the one case which may not be done 10
the other.
dislike to waste word on merely personal
point, but must respectfully assure you that
you will find yourselves at fault should you ever
seek for evidence to p owe your assumption 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 hobeas corpus, and yet the
other guarantees of personal liberty would re-
main unchanged" Doubtless II this clause Of
the Constitution, improperly called ss think
Limitation upon the power Of Congress, were
expuDged, the other guarantees would remain
the same; but the question Is, not how those
guarantees would stand with the clause CUT of
the Constitution, but how they stand with that
invasion, involving the public eafety. If the
liberty could be INDUCED of expunging that
clause, letter and eplrlt, really think the con-
stitutional argument would be with you.
My general view on this question was stated
in the Albany response, and hence do not state
It now. only add that. as seems to me, the
benefit of the writ of habeas corpus, is the great
means through which the guarantees of pereonal
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 law
yers, saw not where else to 60, but to the habeas
corpus. But by the Constitution the beueft Of
the writ Of habeas corpus itaelf may be suspend
ed when In cases of rebellion and invasion the
public safety may require II.
You ask In substance whether / really claim
that l may override ell the guaranteed rights of
individuals, on the plea Of conserving the public
safety-when may choose to say the public
safety requires It. This question, dvested of the
phraseology calculated to represent me as strug-
Cling for an arbitrary personal prerogative, is
either simply question ,cho shall decide, or an
Affirmation that nobody shall decide, what the
public safety does require In case of rebellion
or invasion. The Constitution contemplates the
question as likely to occur for decision, but it
does not expressly declare who is to decide ID,
By necessary implication, when rebellion or in
vasion comes, the decision Ia to be made, from
time to time; and l think the man whom, for
the time, the people have, under the Constitu-
tion, made the CommandeI-ln Chief of their
Army and Navy, Ia the man who holds the
power and bears the responsibility of making it,
II he uses the power justly, the came people will
probably justify him; II he abuses it, he is in
their hands, to be dealt with by all the modes
they have reserved to themselves in the Consti-
tuition.
The earnestness with which you insist thai
persona can only 10 times of rebellion be law
fully dealt with, In accordance with the ruea for
criminal trials and punishments In times of
peace, induces me to add word To what |
eaid on that point In the Albany response. You
claim thss men may, If they choose, emnarrass
those whose duty it is to combat 6 giant rebel
lion and then bs dealt with only in turn ss if
there were no rebellion. The Constitution it
self rejects this view. The military arrests
and detentions which have been made, including
those Of Mr.. Vallandigham, which are not differ
ent in principle from the other, have been for
IREyENTIoN, and not for PUNisHMENr--as iDjunc-
tions TO stay iniury--as proceedings 10 keep the
peace-and hence, like proceedings in such
caees aud for like reasons, they have not been
accompanied with indictments, or trials by iu-
ries, nor, iaiCacsinels case, by any punishment
whatever beyond what is purely incidental to
the prevention. The original sentence OF i'm
prifonment in Mr.. Vallandighams case was TO
prevent Injury to the military service only, and
the modification of itWas made as less disa-
greeable mode 10 him of securing the same pre-
ventiou. rcesss Iidi 2DII sGl
i am unable to perceive an insult to Ohio in
the case of Mr.. VAllandigham. Quite surely |
nothing of this sort was or Is intended. / was
wholly unaware that Mr.. Vallandi CHAM was, at
the time of his arrest, candidate for the Dem
ocrstio nomination for Governor, until 60 in-
formed 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 aud officers che has given 10 the present
national trial TO the armies Of the Union.
You claim, as understand, thas according to
my own position In the Albany response, Mr..
Vallandigham should be released; and this be-
cause, as you claim, he has not damaged the
military service, by discouragiDg enlisiments,
encouraging deaertlona, or otherwise; and that
if he had he should have been turned over to
The civil authorities under the recent acts oil
Congress. ! certainly do not knop that Mr..
yAliandighami has specifically, and by direct
language, advised against eulistments, and In
favor OF desertion and resistance to drafting.
We all know that combinations, armed in some
ina In poaa In pasat tho aYpaak nf doaartara ha-