The Ohio Democrat. [volume] (Canal Dover, Ohio) 1840-1900, 1863-07-17

iStdtlNt power III OOuk'csSi louI pOot
ton, as We understand it, would maxi
your will the rule of action, and you
declarations Of the requirements of tb'
public safety the law OF the land. 0ul
inquiry was not, thel efore, simply
question who shall decide. or the at6rms
tiou that nobody shall decide what tht
public safety requires" Our govern
ment is q government Of law, aud it il
the law. making power which ascertain!
what the public safety requires aud pre-
scribes the rule Of action; and the duty
of the President is simply to execute thu
laws thus enacted, and not 10 make o.
annul laws. If any exigency shall ariS,
the President has the poS to convent
Congress at any time to provide for it
so that tbs plea of necessity furnishes M
reasonable pretext for any assumption O
legislative powers.
For moment contemplate the conse'
qnences of such claim to power. MOI
only would the dominion of the Presi
dent he absolute over the rights Of indi'
vidualS, but equally 80 over the other
departments of the government. II he
should claim that the public safety re.
quired it, he could arrest aud impri Oh a
Judge for the conscientious discharge oI
his duties, paralyze the judicial power
or supercede it by the substitution n
courts. martial, subject to his own will
throughout the whole country. II any
one of the States, even far removed from
the rebellion, should not sustain his plan
for prosecuting the war, he could, on lhi,
plea Of the public safety, annul and sci
at defiance the State laws and authori.
ties, arrest and imprSon the Governor
oFthe State, or the members Of the Leg.
islatnre. while in the faithful discharge
of their duties, or he could absolutely
control the action. either Of Congress OF
of the Supreme Court, by arreSting and
impriSoning its members; aud, uron the
same ground, be could suspend the elect
i've franchise, postpone the elections, ant
declare the perpetnity Of his high pre-
rogative. And neither the power Of i'm
psachment, nor the elections of the peo
Pile, could be made available against such
concentration of power.
Surely it ia unnecessary to subvert free
government in this country in order tC
put down the rebellion; and it cannot bt
doue under the pre,ence Of putting down
the rebellion. Indeed, it is plain that
your administration has been weaken.
ed, greatly weakened, by the assumption
of power not delegated in the Constitu
ton.
In your answer you sOy to us. "You
claim that men may, il they choose, EN-
barrass those whose duty 1t is to combat
O giant rebellion, and then be dealt will
in tnrn only as if there were no rebel
lion." Yon will find yourself at fault /
you will search our communication Il
you, for any such an idea. The under
Sigued believe that the C9hstItution and
laws Of the land, properly admins
tered, furnish annie power to pu
down on insurrsction, without the as
sumption of powers not granted. AnC
If existing legislation be inadequate
1t Is the duty Of Congress to conside,
what further legislation is necessary
aud to make suitsbls provisions by law
You claim that military arrests ma /
by four administration are merely pre-
rsnlius remedies "as iniunctions to sta
injury, or proceeding to stay irjnrv, o
proceeding to keep the peace. and no
for puaishm mi" The ordinary pre-
yentive remedies alluded to are authori
zed by established law, bu: the prevent
i've proceedings you institute have thei
Authority merely in the will of the exec
utiye or that of officers subordinate t,
bis authority. And in this proceedin,
q discretion seems to be exercised as I,
whether the prisoner shall be allowed
trial, or even be permitted 10 know tn
nature OF the complaint alleged agains
him, or the name Of his accuSer. If tn
proceeding be merely preventive, why nc
allow the prisoner The benefit of hon
to keep the peace? But if no otftns
has been committed, why was Mr.. Val
landigham tried, convicted and sentenc
ed by court.martial? And why tn
actual punishment, by imprisonment o
banishment, without the opportunity @
obtaining his liberty in tbe mode usua
in preventive remedies, and yet say it
not punishment?
You still place Mr. ValIandigham
conviction and Punishment upon tn
ground that he had damaged the militia
ry service by discouraging enlistment
and encouraging desertions, &c; an
yet you have not even pretended to COZ
trovert our position, that he was ne
charged with, tried or convicted for an
such ofense before the court.martial.
In answer to our position that Nj
Vallandigham was entitled ro trial !
the civil tribunals, by virtue of the lai
acts of Congress, you say: II certainl
do not know that Mr.. Vallandigham h'
specifically and by direct language OF
vised against enlistments and in favor
desertions and resistance to drafting
&C.; and yet, in subsequent part ofyo,
answer. after speaking of certain disturb
ances which are alleged to have occurre
in resistance to the arrest Of deserter
and OF the enrolment preparatory to II
draft, and which you attribute main
to the course Mr.. Vallandigham ht
pursued you say, that he has mad
speeches against the war in the mid
of resistance to it, that The has new
been known, in any instance, to couI
sci against such resistance" and th'
"it is next to impossible to repel the il