Year: 1863

We have already printed the paper
addressed to the President Of the Uni
ted States by the Ohio Committee o.
Nineteen, demanding the return of Mr.
Vallandigham from exile. Below We
publish the Presidents reply. and the
committees reioinder:


THE REPLY OF THE PRESIDENT.


WAsHINGTON, d. @ June 20, 1868.


GENTLEMEN:-Tbe resolutions ofthe Ohii
Democratic State Convention which ycu pre-
sent me, together with your introductory
and closing remarks, being in position and
argument mainly the same as the resolutions
o the Democratic meeting at a lbany, New
Y York, | re er you to my response to the lat
Ter as meeting most OF the points Of the for
mer. This response you evidently used in
preparing your remarks, and | desire no more
than it be used with accuracy. In single
reading OF your remarks, | only discovered
one inaceuracy in matter which | suppose
you took from that paper. 1t is where yor
say, the undersigned are unable to agree
with you in the opinion you have expressed
that the Constitution is different in time o.
insurrection or invasion from what it is in
tine Of peace and public security.


A recurrence to the paper will show you
that have not expressed the opinion you
suppose. expressed the opinion that the
Constitution Is different 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 | 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 per-
sonal point, but must respectfully assure
you that you will find yourselves at fault
should you yer seek for evidence to prove
your assumption that i opposed in discussion
before the people the policy Of the Mexican
war;


You say: 'Exrunge from the Constitution
this limitation upon the power OF Congress
to suspend the writ of habras corpus, and J ct
the other guarantees of personal liberty
would remain unchanged.' Doubtless If this
clause OF the Constitution, improperly called
as think a limitation upon the power OF
Congress, were expunged the other guaranS
tees would remain the same; but TIE question
IS not how those guarantees would stand
the clause CUT out O. the Constitution, but
how they stand with that clause remaining
IN it, in cases OF rebellion or INVASION inyol-
wing the public safety. the liberty could
be indulged OF expunging that clause, letter
and spirit. really think the constitutional
would be with you.


My general view on this question was sta
ted in the Albany response, and hence Go
not state it now. | only add that, 1t seems to
me, the benefit Of the writ Of hateaS corpus
IS the great means through which the guar
antees of personal liberty are conserved and
made available in the last resort; ana corrob.
orative OF this view, is the fact, that Mr..
Vallandigham in the very case i'll question,
under tho advice OF able lawyers, saw not
where else to go, but to the habeaS corpus -
But by the Constitution the benefit OF the
writ OF hGJegs copuS itself may be suspended
when IN cases otrebellIon and invasion the
public safety may require it.


You ask in substance whether | really
claim that may over ride all the guaranteed
rights OF individuals, ON the plea OF cOnserv-
ing the public safety--when | may choose to
say the public safety requires it. This ques
ton diVested Of the phraseology calculated to
represent me as struggling Tor an arbitrary
personal prerogative, is either simply ques
ton who shall decide, or an affirmation that
nobody shall decide, what the public safety
does require in case o rebellion or invasion.
The Constitution contemplates the question
as likely to occur for decision, but it does not
declare who is to decide it. By
necessary APPLICATION, when rebellion or in>
vasion 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
Chief OF their Army and Navy, is the man
who holds the power and bears the responsi
bility Of making it. If he uses the power
justly, the same people will probably justify
him; il he abuses, he is in their hands, to
be dealt with by all the modes they have
reserved to themselves in the Constitution.


The earnestness with which you insist
that persons can only in times Of rebellion be
lawfully dealt with, in accordance with the
rules ior criminal trial and punishments in
times OF peace, induce me to add word to
what said on that point in the Albany re
sponse. You claim that men may If they
choose, embarass those whose duty it is to
combat giant rebellionand then be
dealt with only in turn asf there were
no rebellion. The Constitution itself
rejects this view. The military ar
rests and detentons which have been made,
including those OF Mr.. Vallandigham, which
are not different in principle from the other,
have been for peventug ard not for punish
mcnt--as inunctions to stay injury-as pro
ceedings TO keep peace and hence, ike pro
ceedipgs in such cases and for like reasons,
they have not been accompanied with indict
ments, or trials by juries, nor, in single
case, by any punishments, whatever beyond
what is purely incidental to the prevention.
The original sentence Of imprisonmnt in Mr..
Vallandighams case was to prevent injury
to the military service only, and the mod
ificaton Of it was made as a less disagreeable
mode to him Of securing the .aine preven
ton.


am unable to perceive an insult to Ohio
in the case of Mr.. Vallandigham. Quite
surely nothing Of this sort was or is inten.
ded | was wholly unaware that Mr.. Val.
landigham was, at the time Of his arrest, 0
candidate for the Democratic nomination for
Governor, until SO informed by your reading
to me the resolutions Of the Convention. |
am grateful to the State OF Ohio for mary
things, especially for the brave soldiers and
officers she has given in the present national
trial to the armies OF the Union.


You claim, as understand, that accord


ing to my own position in the Albany re
sponse, Mr. Valandigham should ba reeas
ed; and this because, as you claim he has
not damaged the military service, by discour
aging cnlstmeDts, encouraging desertions
or otherwise; and that II he had he should
have been turned over to the civil authori
ties under the recent acts Of congress. !
certainly do not know that Mr.. Valandig
ham has specifically, and by direct language
advised against enlistments. and in favor o.