Delaware gazette. [volume] (Delaware, Ohio) 1855-1886, 1863-07-17
The ValIandigham Case-The Presidents Reply
to the Ohio Committee.
WAsH1xGToN. D. G., Jure 20, 1868.

GENTLEMEN:- resolutions of the Obi
Democratic State Convention, which you pre-
sent me, together with your Introductory an
closing remarks, being in position and argu
ment mainly the same as the resolutions @
the Democratic meeting at Albany, n. Y,
refer you to my response to the latter as meet
ing most Of the points in the former. Thi
response you evidently used in preparing you
remarks, and desire no more than that it b.
used with accuracy. In & single reading 0
your remarks, 1 only discovered one inaccu
raey in matter which l suppose you took from
that paper. 1t is where you say, "The under
signed are unable TO agree with you in The o.
pinion you have expressed, that the Constitu,
tion is different in time of insurrection or in
vasion from what it Is in time of peace and
public security"
A recurrence to the paper will show you
that I have not expressed the opinion you
suppose. I expressed the opinion that the
Constitution is different IN it application in
cases of rebellion or invasion, involving the
public safety, from what it is in times of pro-
found peace and public security; and this opin-
ion adhere to, simply because by the Consti-
tuition itself, things may be done in the one
case which may not be done in the other.
| dislike to waste a word on a merely per
sonal point, but must respectfully assure you
that you viii find yourselves at fault should
you ever seek for evidence TO prove your as
sumption that opposed in discussions 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 habeas corpus, and yet the
other guarantees of personal liberty whould
remain unchanged" Doubtless if this clause
of the Constitution, improperly called as I
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 that clause
OUT OF the Constitution, but how they stand
with that clause in it, in case of rebellion or
invasion, involving the public safety. If the
liberty could be INDUCED of expunging that
clause, letter and spirit, really think the con-
stitutional argument would be with you.
My general view on this question was stated
in the Albany response, and hence l 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
personal liberty are conserved and made avail
able in the last resort; and corroborative of
this view, is the fact that 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 Constitution the
benefit of the habeas corpus itself may be sus-
pended when in cases of rebellion and invasion
the public safety may require it.
You ask in substance whether I really claim
that I may override all the guaranteed rights
of individuals, on the plea of conserving the
public safety, when l may choose to say the
public safety requires it. This question, di-
vested of the phraseology calculated to repre-
sent me as struggling for an arbitrary person
al preregative, is either question g0ho SHAH
decide, or an affirnation thai 4lobe8y shall de-
eide, what public safety does require in cases
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 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 Constitution, made the Commander
in-chief of their army and navy, is the man
who holds the power and bears the response
bility of making it. If he uses the power
Justly. the same people will probably justify
him; if he abuses it, he is in their hands, to be
dealt with by 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 law
fully dealt with, in accordance with the rules
for criminal trials and punishments in times of
peace, induce 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 rebel |
lion, and then be dealt with only in turn as if
there was no rebellion. The Constitution it
self rejects this view. The military arrests
and detentions which have been made, includ-
ing those of Mr.. VaIlandigham which are not
different in principle from the others, have
been for prevention and not punishment-as
injunetions to stay injury-as proceedings to
keep the peace, and hence, like proceedings in
such cases and for like reasons, they have not
been accompanied thIindietments, or trials by
juries, nor, in a single case, by any punishment
whatever beyond what is purely incidental to
the prevention. The original sentence of i'm
prisonment in ValIandigham's case was to
prevent injury to the military service only,
and the modification of it was made less dis
agreeable mode to him of securing the same
prevention.
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.. Vallandigham was,
at the time of his arrest a candidate for the
Democratic nomination for Governor, until so
informed by your reading to me the resolu-
tions of the Convention l am grateful to the
State Of Ohio for many things, especially for
the brave soldiers and officers she has given in
the present national trial to the armies of the
Union.
You claim, as l understand, that according
to my own position in the Albany response,
Mr.. Vallandigham should be released; and this
because, as you claim, he has not damaged the
military service, by discouraging enlstments,
encouraging desertions, or otherwise, and that,
If he had, he should have been turned over to
the civil authorities under the recent acts of
Congress. certainly do not knog that Mr.
Vallandigham has specifically, and by direct
language, advised against enlistments, and in
favor of desertion and resistance TO drafting.
We all know that combinations, armed in some
instances, to resist the arrest of deserters, be-
gan several months ago; that more recently
the like has appeared in resistance to the en-
rollment preparatory to draft; and that quite
a number of assassinations have occurred from
thessame animus. These had to be met by
military force, and this again has led to blood
shed aud deoth. And now, under a sense of
responsibility more weighty and enduring than
any which is merely official, solemnly declare
my belief that this hindrt.nce of the military,
incIndinn rnainninn md murder ia dnn to the