Holmes County farmer. [volume] (Millersburg, Ohio) 1857-1926, 1863-07-23
THE REPLY.

LOUIS SCHAEFER, 18th Dist.
THE REPLY.
WASHINGTON, D. O., June 90, 1868.
Messrs. NJ. Birchare, David A. Houcb, George
Bliss, 7. W. Barley, W. J. Cord on, John
O'Neil, G. A. White, WE Finck, Alex
ander Long, J. W. White, Geo. II. Pende-
ton, Geo. l.. Converse, HAMA p. N obe,
James Q. Morris, w. A. Hutcbins, Abner
L.Backus, j. F. Mckinney, F. Q lie Blond,
Louis Schaffer
GENTLEMEN--The resolutions of the
Ohio Democratic State Convention which
you present me, together with your in
troductory and closing remarks. being in
position and argument mainly the same
as the resolutions of the democratic meet
ing at Albany, New York, l refer you to
my response to the latter as meeting m ost
OF the points in the former. This res
ponse you evidently used in preparing
your remarks, and desire no more than
that it be used with accuracy. In a sim
gle reading of your remarks, ! only dis.
covered one inaccuracy in matter which
| suppose you took from nay paper. 1t
is where you say, "The undersigned a.e
unable to agree with you in the opinion
You have expressed that the Constitution
is different in time of instruction or in
vasion from what it is in time of peace
and public security" A recurrence to
the paper will show you that l have not
expressed the opinion as you suppose. l
expressed the opinion that the Constitu.
tion 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 adhere 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 a merely
personal point, but l must respectfully
assure you that you will find yourselves
at fault should you ever seek for evidence
to prove your assumption that "opposed
in discussions before the people the policy
of the Mexican war" Ia.
You say, "Expunge from the Consti-
tuition this limitation upon the power of
Congress to suspend the writ of habeas
corpus, and yet the other guarantee of
personal liberty would remain unchan-
ged." Doubtless if this clause of the
Constitution. improperly called as think
Limitation upon the power of Congress,
were expunged, the other 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 pub.
lie safety. If the liberty could be indul.
ged of expunging that clause. letter and
spirit, really think the constitutional
argument would be with you. My gen
eral 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 haJeas
corpus is the great means through which
the guarantees of personal liberty are con-
served and and made available in the last
resort; and, coroborative of this view
is the fact that Mr. Vallandigham. in the
very case in question, under the advice of
able lawyers. saw not where else to 60
but to the AaJeas corpus. But by the
: Constitution the benefit of the writ Of
haJeas corpus itself may be suspended
when in cases of rebellion or invasion
! the public safety may require it.
You ask in substance, whether l really
claim that may override all the guaran
teed right of individuals, on the plea Of
conserving the public safety-when
may choose to say the public safety re-
quires it. This question. divested OF the
phraseology calculated to represent me
as struggling for an arbitrary preroga.ive
is either simply question scho shall de-
eide, or an affirmation that nobody shall
decide, what the public safety does re-
0 quire in cases of rebellion or invasion
The Constitution conternplates the ques
t ton as likely to occur for decision. but il
1 does not expressly declare who is to de-
Q cice it. BY necessary application wher
: rebellion or Invasion comes, the decision
: is to be made, from time to time; and
t think the man whom, for the time, tn
t people have. under the Constitution, made
/. the commander in chief of their army ant
n navy, is the man who holds the powe
!, and takes the responsibility of making
it. If he uses the power Justly. the SAM
o people will probably justify him; if h
d abuses it, he is in their hands to be deal
O with by all the modes they have reserved
il to themselves in the Constitution.
n The earnestness with which you insis
S that persons can only in times of rebellion
Il be lawfully dealt with, in accordance witt
the rules of criminal trials and punish
q ments in times of peace, induces me t.
il add word to what said on that poin
j. in the Albany response. You claim tha
IS men may. ifthey choose. embarrsss thos
If whose duty it is to combat giant rebel
if lion, and then be dealt with only in tur
j. as it there we're no rebellion. The Con
stitu,ion itself rejects this view. Th
J. military arrests and detentions whic
IT have been made. including those Of MI