The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1863-07-17

reply to the committee of Ohio, who went
to Washington to present q petition in be-
half of Mr.. EALLANDIGIAM:
WASHINGTON, D. c., June 30, 1868.
Ucss,s. ". Burcha,I. Dac;d i. UoucIe, George
Bliss. T. ". Bafley ". j. Gordoa, Joha
DWELL, C.. I. White, u. T.. Fink, .fie~0ader
Loay, j. II. White. Geo,ye II. PenNcton,
George L. Ccarrse. Hm@, p. No]{e, James
II. Morris, ". 4 Hotchias, timer /. Ench-
u.s. j. T. .NchGaney p. {. lie Eload Louis
.Scbaetcf:
GENTLEMEN TIC resolutions OF tlo
Ohio Democratic State Convention, which
you present Me, together with your intro
ductory and closing remarks, being in DO
sition and argument mainly the same as
the resolutions of the democratic meeting
at Albany, New York, refer you to my
response to the latter as meeting most of
the points in the former. This response
you evidently used in preparing your re-
marks, and desire no more than that it
be u ed with accuracy. In a single read
ing of your remarks only discovered one
inaccuracy in the matter, which | suppose
you took from that paper. 1t is where
you say 1.-The undersigned are unable to
agree with you in the opinion you have
expressed that the constitution is differ
ent in time of insurrection or invasion
from what it is in time of peace and pub
lie security" a recurrence to the paper
will show you that have not expressed
the opinion you suppose. | expressed
the opinion that the constitution is differ
ent 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 l
adhere to, simply because by the consti-
tuition itselfthings may he done in the one
case which may not be done in the other
| dislike to waste q word on a merely
personal point, but must respectfully as
sure you that you will find yourselves at
| fault should you ever seek for evidence to
prove your assumption that l "opposed in
discussion before the people the policy of
the Mexican war;
You say, "Expunge from the constitu-
ton this limitation upon the power of
Congress to suspend the hGbeas corpus,
and yet the other guarantees of personal
liberty would remain unchanged" Doubt
less if this clause Of the constitution, i'm
properly called, as think, limitation
upon the power Of Congress, were expun-
ged, 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 remaining in
it, in cases of rebellion or invasion invOlv-
ing the public safety. If the liberty could
be indulged Of expunging that clause, let
ter and spirit, l really think the constitu-
tional argument would be with you. My
general view on this question was stated
in the Albany response, and hence 1 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 con-
served and made available in the last re-
sort; and corroborative 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 go but to
the habeas corpus. But by the constitu-
ton the benefit ofthe writ of hdbeas cor
pus itself may be suspended when in cases
of rebellion or invasion the public safety
may require it.
You ask in substance whether I really
claim that may override all the guaran-
tied rights of individuals, on the plea of