LETTER TO GENERAL CURTIS, MO., "But I must add that the United States Government must not, as by this order, undertake to run the churches. When an individual in a church, or out of it, becomes dangerous to the public interest, he must be checked; but let the churches, as such, take care of themselves. It will not do for the United States to appoint trustees, supervisors, or other agents for the churches." REPLY TO NEW YORK DEMOCRATS, JUNE 12, 1863. "I can no more be persuaded that the government can constitutionally take no strong measures in time of rebellion, because it can be shown that the same could not be lawfully taken in time of peace, than I can be persuaded that a par ticular drug is not good for a sick man because it can be shown to be not good food for a well one. Nor am I able to appreciate the danger apprehended by the meeting that the American people will, by means of military arrests during the rebellion, lose the right of public discussion, the liberty of speech and of the press, the laws of evidence, trial by jury and habeas corpus throughout the indefinite peaceful future, which I trust lies before them, any more than I am able to believe that a man could contract so strong an appetite for emetics. during temporary illness as to persist in feeding on them during the remainder of his healthful life." REPLY TO NEW YORK DEMOCRATS, "Habeas corpus does not dis charge men who are proven to be guilty of defined crime; and its suspension is allowed by the Constitution on purpose that men may be arrested and held who cannot be proved guilty of defined crime, 'when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.'" REPLY TO LETTER FROM OHIO DEMOCRATS, JULY 29, 1863. "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 I adhere to, simply because by the Constitution itself things may be done in the one case which may not be done in the other." CONCERNING THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS, WHEN URGED TO SUPPRESS THE CHICAGO TIMES. "I fear you do not fully comprehend the danger of abridging the liberties of the people. Nothing but the sternest necessity can ever justify it. A government had better go to the extreme of toleration, than do aught that can be construed into an interference with, or to jeopardize in any degree, the common rights of its citizens." SPEECH AT THE BALTIMORE FAIR, "The world is in want of a good definition of the word liberty. We all declare ourselves to be for liberty, but we do not all mean the same thing. Some mean that a man can do as he pleases with himself and his property. With others it means that some men can do as they please with other men and other men's labor. Each of these things is called liberty, although they are entirely different. To give an illustration: A shepherd drives the wolf from the throat of his sheep when attacked by him, and the sheep of course thanks the shepherd for the protection of his life; but the wolf denounces him as despoiling the sheep of his liberty— especially if it be a black sheep." REPLY TO MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL SYNOD OF THE LUTHERAN CHURCH, AUGUST, 1864. "I accept with gratitude their assurances of the sympathy and support of that enlightened, influential, and loyal class of my fellow-citizens, in an important crisis which involves, in my judgment, not only the civil and religious liberties of our own dear land, but in a large degree the civil and religious liber |