The spirit of democracy. [volume] (Woodsfield, Ohio) 1844-1994, 1863-07-15

country, cannot be used as means of res
toring the Union; or that a war to subju
gate part of the States, or war to reyo
lutioniEe the social system in a part ofth
States, could not restore, but would in
evitably result in the final obstruction o.
both the Constitution and the Union, is
he not to be allowed the right of an Ameri.
can citizen to appeal to the Judgment OF
the people for a change of policy by the
constitutional remedy ofthe ballot boxt
During the war with Mexico, many Of
the political opponents of the administra-
tion then in power thought it their duty
to deaounce and oppose the war, and to
urge before the people of the country that
it was unjust, and prosecuted for unholy
purposes. With equal reason it might
have been said of them, that their discuss
ions before the people were calculated to
discourage enhstments, ito prevent the
raising of troops and to induce deserti-
ons from the army. and leave the Govern
ment without an adequate military force
to carry on the war.
If the freedom of speech and of the
press are to be suspendedsin in time of war,
then the essential elementof popular gov
ernment to effect change of policy in the
constitutional mode is at an end. The
freedom of speech and of the press is in
-dispensable, and necessarily incident to
the nature of popular government, itself
lfany Inconvenience or evils arise from
its exercise, they are unavoidable.
On this subject you are reported to have
said, further: .....
at is asserted, in substance, that Mr..
Vallandigham was, by military comman-
der, seized and tried, for no other reason
than words addressed to a public meeting
in criticism of the course of the Admins
tration, and in condemnation of the mill
tary orders OF the general Now, ifthere
be no mistake about this, if there was no
other reason for the arrest, then concede
that the arrest was wrong. But the ar
rest, l understand, was made for very
ditfere>t reason. Mr.. Yallandigham
avows his hostility to the war on the part
of the Union; and his arrestwas made be-
cause he was laboring, with some effect, to
prevent the raising of troops, to encourage
desertions from the army, and to leave the
rebellion without an adequate military
force to suppress it. He was not arrested
because he was damaging the political
prospects of the Administration or the
personal interests ofthe commanding gem
eral, but because he was damaging the
army, upon the existence and vigor of
which the life of the nation depends: He
was warning upon the military, and this
gave the military constitutional jurisdic-
ton to lay hands upon him. If Mr.. Val
landigham Was not damaging the military
power of the country, then his arrest was
made on mistake of facts, which | would
be glad to correct on reasonable satisiac-
tory evidence. " - aft
In answer to this, permit us to say first
that neither the charge nor the specifca-
tions In support of the charge on which
Mr.. Vallandighalp was tried, impute to
him the act of either laboring to. prevent
the raising of troops, or to encourage des-
ertions from the army. Secondly, no
evidence on the trial was offered with a
view to support, or even tended to sup
port any such charge. In what instance,
and by what act, did he either discourage
cnlistments or encourage desertions in the
army? Who is the man who was discour-
aged from enlisting, and who encouraged
to desert, by any act of Mr.. Vallandig-
ham? If it be assumed that perchance
some person might have been discouraged
from eniisting, or that some person might
have been encouraged to desert, on ac-
count. of hearing of Mr.. Vallandighams
views as to the policy of the war as
means Of restoring the Union, would that
have laid the foundation for his conviction
and banishment? If so, upon the same
grounds every political opponent of the
Mexican war might have been convicted
and banishcd from the country. Hhen
gentlemen OF high standing and extensive
influence, including your Excellency, op-
posed, in the discussions before the peo-
pie, the policy Of the Mexican war, were
they "warring upon the military" and did
this '.give the military constitutional jur-
isdiction to lay hunds upon them? And,
finally, the charge in the specifications
upon which Mr.. Vallandigham was tried
eutitlcd him to trial before the civil tri-
buuals. according..to the express provisions
Of the late acts of Congress, approved by
yourself. July 18th, 1862, and March Sd,
1000, WHICH were Hdulleslly UeSiSlSu 10
supersede all necessity or pretext for
arbitrary military arrests.
The undersigned are unable to agree
with you in the opinion you have ex-
pressed, that the Constitution is different
in time of insurrection or invasion from
what it is in time of peace and public Sc
curity. The Constitution provides for
no limitation upon or exceptions to the
guarantees of personal liberty, except
as to the writ of haqeas corpus. Has the
President, at the time of invasion or in
surrection, the right to engraft limita-
tions upon. these constitutional guarran-
tees, whenever, in his Judgment, the pub
lie safety requires it? True it is, the
article of the Constitution which defines
the various powers delegated to Congress,
declares that ''the privilege of the writ
of habeas corpus shall not be suspended
unless where, in-cases of rebellion or in
vasion, the public safety may require it. ;"
But this qualification or limitation upon
this restriction upon the powers of Con-
gress, has no reference to or in connec-
tion with the other constitutional guar
r,ntees of ners0nal liberty. Exnunpe