The Ohio Democrat. [volume] (Canal Dover, Ohio) 1840-1900, 1863-07-17
Response Of the Ohio Delegation
to President Lincoln.

The Committee appointed by the
Democratic State Convention, applied
in writing to the President for the re-
lease of Mr.. Vallandigham. His an.
swer is published in the Republican pa
pers. The reply of the Committee to
that answer recites the points made by
the President fully, and demolishes his
whole argument. It is as follows:
New YORK Cry, July l, 1868.
TO HIS Ercellency, the President Of
the United Stdtes: ....
SIR:-Your answer to the application
of the undersigned for q revocatian of
the order for banishment of Clement l..
Vallandigham requires reply, which
they proceed, with aslittle delay as pos
sible, to make. .l-
They are not able to appreciate the
force of the distinction you make between
the Constitution and the applications of
the Constitution, whereby you assume
that powers are delegated to the Presi-
dent at the time Of invasion or insurrec-
tiOn in derogation of the plain language
of the Constitution. The inherent pro-
visions of the Constitution remaining the
same in time of insurrection or invasion
as in time of peace, the President can
have no more right to disregard their
positive and imperative requirements at
the former time than at the latter. Be-
cause some things may be done by the
terms of the Constitution at the time of
invasion or insurrection which would not
be required by the occasion in time Of
peace, you assume that anything what
ever, even though not expressed by the
Constitution, may be done on the occa-
sion ofinsurrection or invasion which the
President may choose to say is required
by the public safety. In palmer terms,
because the writ of habeas corpus may
be suspended at the time Of invasion or
insurrection. you infer that all other pro-
visions of the Constitution having in
view the protection of the life, liberty
and property of the citizen may be in
like manner suspended. The provision
relating to the writ of habeas corpus
being contained in the first article of the
Constitution, the purpose Of which is to
define the powers delegated to Congress,
has no connection in language with the
declaration of rights, as guarantees of
personal liberty, contained in the addi.
tioual and amendatory articles. And
inaSmnch as the provision relating to
habeas corpus expressly provided for
its suspension, and the other provisions
alluded to do not provide for any such
thing, the legal conclusion is, that the
suspension Of the latter is unauthorized.
The provision for the writ Of habeas cor.
pus is merely intended to furnish sum-
mary remedy, and not the means where.
by personal security is conserved, in the
final resort; while the other provisions
are guarantees Of personal rights, the
suspension of which puts an end to all
pretense of free government. 1t is true
Mr.. Vallandigham applied for writ of
habeaS corpus as summary remedy
against oppression. But the denial of
this did not take away his right to
speedy public trial by an impartial jury,
, or deprive him of his rights as an Amer.
. lean citizen. Your assumption of the
r right to suspend all the constitutional
| guarantees of personal liberty, and even
of the freedom of speech and of the
press, because the summary remedy Of
habeas corpus may be suspended, is at
once startling and alarming to all per-
sons desirous of preserving free govern
ment in this country.
: The inquiry Of the undersigned, wheth-
er "you hold that the rights Of every
man throughout this vast country, in
time ofinvasion or insurrection, aresub.
, ject to be anuulled, whenever you may
say that you may say that you consider
the public safety requires it," was plain
question, undisguiSed by circumlocution.
, Your affirmative answer to this question
throws shade upon the fondest antici-
/ pations of the trainers Of the Constitu.
tion, who aattered themselves that they
had provided safeguards against the
dangers which have ever beset aud over
thrown free government in other ages
and countries. Your answer is not to
be disguised by their phraseology that
the question "is simply question who
. shall decide, or an affirmation that no.
D body shall decide what the public safety
does require in cases of rebellion or in
Q vasion." Our government was designed
to be government Of law, settled and
! defined, and not of the arbitrary will Of
i single man. As q safeguard, the
S powers granted were divided, and dele
: gated to the legislative, executive and
Judicial branches Of the government, and
each made coordinate with the others,
and supreme within its sphere, and thus
a mutual check upon each other, in case
- of abuse of power. 1t has been the
q boast af the American people that they
> had a written Constitution not only ex>
" pfeSSly defining, but also limiting the
powers Of the government, and provid.
y y ing effectual safeguards for personal lib.
If erty, security and property. And to
g make the matter more positive and ex.
IS plicit, it was provided by the amenda-
tory articles, nine and ten, that "the emu.
J. meration in the Constitution Of certain
u rights shall not be construed to deny or
II disparage others retained by the peo.
J. ple," and that "the powers hot delega.