Year: 1863

for the Release of Vallandigham.


WASHINGTON, ID. O., July 5, 1868.


GENTLEMEN: The resolutions of the
Ohio Democratic State Convention, which
you present me. together with your intro
ductory and closing remarks, being in po-
sition and argument mainly the same as
tire resolutions of the Democratic meet
ing at Albany, New York, | refer you
to my response to the latter as meeting
most OF the points of the former. This
response you evidently used in preparing
your remarks, and / desire no more than
that it be used with accuracy. In single
reading of your remarks, only discover
ed one inaccuracy in matter which sup.
pose You took from that paper. 1t is where
you say-''The undersigned are unable to
agree with you in the opinion you have
expressed that the constitution is different
in time of insurrection or invasion from
what it is in time of peace and public
security


A recurrence to the paper will show
You that have not expressed the opinion
that the constitution is fferent IN It's ap-
plicat:on in case Of rebellion or invasion,
involving the public safety from what it is
in times of profound peace and public Sc
curity; and this opinion 1 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 evi
dence to prove your assumption that
"opposed the discussion before the people
of the policy of the Mexican war"


You say, "Expunge from the constitu.
ton this limitation upon the power Of
Congress to suspend the writ of habeas
corpus, and yet the other guarantees oI
personal liberty would remain unchanged -
Doubtless if this clause of the constitu
tion, improperly called. as l think. a
limitation upon the power of Congress,
were expunged. the other guarantees would
remain the same; but tho 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 case of rebellion or invasion, in.
volving the public safety. If the liberty
could be indulged of expunging that
clause. letter and spirit, really think the
constitutional argument would be with
you.


My general 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 ol
habeas corpus is the great means through
which the guarantees of personal liberty
are conserved and made available in the
last resort; and corroborativs OF this
view is the fact that Mr. Vallapdigham, in
the very case in question, under the ad
vice of able lawyers, saw not where else
to go but to the habeas corpus. But by
the constitution, the benefit of the writ OF
habeas corpus itself may be suspended
when in case of rebellion and invasion
the public safety may require.


You ask in substance whether / really
claim that l may override oil the guar.
ranteed rights of individuals on the plea
of conserving the public safety-when l
may choose to say the public safety rc.
quires it. This question. divestod of the
phrascology calculated to represent ne as
struggling for an arbitrary personal pre-
rogative. is either simply question who
shall decide or an affirmation that nobody
shall decide, what the public safety does
require in cases of rebellion or invasion
The constitution contemplates the ques-
tion as likely to occur for decision, but Il
does not expressly declare who is to de-
eide it. BY necessary implication, when
rebellion or invasion comes, the decision is
to be made, from time to time; and
think the man whom, for the time. the
people have, under the constitution, made
the Commander-in-C Chief of their army
and navy, is the man who holds the pow
or and bears the responsibility of making
it. If he uses the power justly, the same
people will probably justify him; if be
abuses it, he is in their hands, to be dealt
with by all modes they have reserved to
themselves in the constitution.


The earnetness with which you insist
that persons can only in times of rebellion
be lawfully dealt with, in accordance with
the rules for criminal trials and punish.
ments in times of peace, induces me te
add word to what l said on that point
in the Albany response. You claim that
men may. if they choose, embarrass those
whose duty it is to combat giant REBEL.
ion, and then be dealt with only in turn
as if there were no rebellion. The Con
stitution itself rejects this view. The
military arrests and detentions which
have been made, including that of Mr.
vallandigham, which is not different in
principle from the other, have been fol
prevention. and not for punishment--as
injunctions to stay injury--as proceedings
to Keep the peace--and hence, like pro-
ceedings in such cases and like reasons.
they have not been accompanied with lin
dicimcnts, or trials by juies. nor, IN a
single case by any punishment whateyei
beyond what is purely incidental to the
prevention. The original sentence oi
imprisonment in Mr.. Vallandigham's case
was to prevent injury to the military ser
vice only, and the modification of it was
made as less disagreeable mode to hin
of securing the prevention. s-ra s.f,5


/ am unable to prsceive an insult te
Ohio in the case Of Mr. Vallandigham.-
Quite surely nothing Of this sort was OF
is intended. Il wasrwholly unaware .tha
Mr.. Vsllandigham was, at the time of hi
.r~o.t a cond;doyo f>r fba na,n orrofi.