it beyond the constitution, and to speak disparagingly of the great conservative tribunal of our country, so highly respected by all thinking men who have inquired into our institu

tions-THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.

Your administration has been true to the principles you then laid down. Notwithstanding the fact that several hundred thousand democrats in the loyal states cheerfully responded to the call of their country, filled the ranks of its armies, and by "their strong hands and willing arms," aided to maintain your Excellency and the officers of government in the possession of our national capital; notwithstanding the fact that the great body of the democrats of the country have, in the most patriotic spirit, given their best efforts, their treasure, their brothers and their sons to sustain the government and to put down the rebellion; you, choosing to overlook all this, have made your appointments to civil office, from yonr Cabinet officers and foreign Ministers down to the persons of lowest official grade among the tens of thousands engaged in collecting the revenues of the country, exclusively from your political associates.

Under such circumstances, virtually proscribed by your administration, and while most of the leading journals which supported it approved the sentence pronounced against Mr. Vallandigham, was our true course, our honest course, to meet as "Democrats" that neither your Excellency or the country might mistake our antecedents or our position.

In closing this communication, we desire to reaffirm our determination and we doubt not that of every one who attended the meeting which adopted the resolutions we have discussed, expressed in one of those resolutions, to devote "all our energies to sustain the cause of the Union."

Permit us, then, in this spirit, to ask your Excellency to re-examine the grave subjects we have considered, to the end that, on your retirement from the position you now occupy. you may leave behind you no doctrines and no farther precedents of despotic power to prevent you and your posterity from enjoying that constitutional liberty, which is the inheritance of us all, and to the end, also, that history may speak of yaur administration with indulgence, if it cannot with approval.

We are, sir, with great respect, yours truly.

JOHN V, L. PRUYN,
Chairman of Committee.
[Signed also by the entire Committes.]
ALBANY, June 30, 1863,

CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE OHIO COMMIT-
TEE.

The following is a correct copy of the correspondence between President Lincoln and the committee appointed by the Ohio Democratic State Convention to ask for permission for Hon. C. L. Vallandigham to return to Ohio:

The Letter to the President.

WASHINGTON CITY, June 26, 1863.

To His Excellency the President of the United States:

The undersigned, having been appointed a committee, under the authority of the resolutions of the state convention, held at the city of Columbus, Ohio, on the 11th instant, to communicate with you on the subject of the arrest and banishment of Clement L. Vallandigham, most respectfully submit the following as the resolutions of that convention, bearing upon the subject of this communication, and ask of your excellency their earnest consideration. And they deem it proper to state that the convention was one in which all parts of the state were represented, and one of the most respectable as to character and numbers, and one of the most earnest and sincere in support of the Constitution and Union ever held

in that state.

Resolved, 1, That the will of the people is the foundation of all free government; that to give effect to this will, free thought, free speech and a free press are absolutely indispensable. Without free discussion there is no certainty of sound judgment; without sound judgment there can be no wise government.

2. That it is an inherent and constitutional right of the people to discuss all measures of their government, and to approve or disapprove, as to their best judgment seems right. That they have a like right to propose and advocate that policy which in their judgment is best, and to argue and vote against whatever policy seems to them to violate the Constitution, to impair their liberties, or to be detrimental to their welfare.

3. That these and all other rights guaranteed to them by their constitutions are their rights in time of war as well as in time of peace, and of far more value and necessity in war than in peace, for in peace liberty, security and property are seldom endangered; in war they are ever in peril.

4. That we now say to all whom it may concern, not by way of threat, but calmly and firmly, that we will not surrender these rights nor submit to their forcible violation. We will obey the laws ourselves, and all others must obey them.

11. That Ohio will adhere to the Constitution and the Union as the bast, it may be the last, hope of popular freedom, and for all wrongs which may have been committed or evils which may exist will seek redress, under the Constitution and within the Union, by the peaceful but powerful agency of the suffrages of a free people.

14. That we will earnestly support every constitutional measure tending to preserve the Union of the states. No men have a greater interest in its preservation than we have-none desire it more; there are none who will make greater sacrifices or endure more than we will to accomplish that end. plish that end. We are, as we ever have been, the devoted friends of the Constitution and the Union, and we have no sympathies with the enemies of either.

15. That the arrest, imprisonment, pretended trial, and actual banishment of Clement L. Vallandigham, a citizen of the State of Ohio, not belonging to the land or naval forces of the United States, nor to the militia in actual service, by alleged military authority, for no other pretended crime than that of uttering words of legitimate criticism upon the conduct of the administration in power, and of appealing to the ballot-box for a change of policy -said arrest and military trial taking place where the courts of law are open and unobstructed, and for no act done within the sphere of active military operations in carrying on the war-we regard as a palpable violation of the following provision of the Constitution of the United States:

1. "Congress shall make no law

abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

2. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affir

mation, and particularly describing the place to be search-dence in the fidelity of ed and the persons or things to be seized."

3. "No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger."

4. "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury

of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law."

And we furthermore denounce said arrest, trial and banishment, as a direct insult offered to the sovereignty of the people of Ohio, by whose organic law it is declared that no person shall be transported out of the state for any offence committed within the same.

16. That Clement L. Vallandigham was, at the time of his arrest, a prominent candidate for nomination by the Democratic party of Ohio, for the office of governor of the state; that the Democratic party was fully competent to decide whether he is a fit man for that nomination, and that the attempt to deprive them of that right, by his arrest and banishment, was an unmerited imputation upon their intelligence and loyalty, as well as a violation of the Constitution.

17. That we respectfully, but most earnestly, call upon the President of the United States to restore Clement L. Vallandigham to his home in Ohio, and that a commit.ee of one from each congressional district of the state, to be selected by the presiding officer of this convention, is hereby appointed to present this application to the President.

The undersigned, in the discharge of the duty assigned them, do not think it necessary to reiterate the facts connected with the arrest trial, and banishment of Mr. Vallandighamthey are well known to the President, and are of public history-nor to enlarge upon the positions taken by the convention, nor to recapitulate the constitutional provisions which it is believed have been contravened; they have been stated at length, and with clearness in the resolutions which have been recited. The undersigned content themselves with brief reference to other suggestions pertinent to the subject.

dence in the fidelity of your administration to the great landmarks of free government, essential to a peaceful and successful enforcement of the laws in Ohio.

You are reported to have used, in a public communication on this subject, the following language:

"It gave me pain when I learned that Mr. Vallandigham had been arrested-that is, I was pained that there should have seemed to be a necessity for arresting him; and that it will afford me great pleasure to discharge him, so soon as I can by any means believe the public safety will not suffer by it."

The undersigned assure your excellency, from our personal knowledge of the feelings of the people of Ohio, that the public safety will be far more endangered by continuing Mr. Vallandigham in exile than by releasing him. It may be true, that persons differing from him in political views may be found in Ohio, and elsewhere, who will express a different opinion. But they are certainly mistaken.

Mr. Vallandigham may differ with the President, and even with some of his own political party, as to the true and most effectual means of maintaining the Constitution and restoring the Union; but this difference of opinion does not prove him to be unfaithful to his duties as an American citizen. If a man devotedly attached to the Constitution and the Union conscientiously believes that from the inherent nature of the federal compact the war, in the present condition of things in this country, cannot be used as a means of restoring the Union; or that a war to subjugate a part of the states, or a war to revolutionize the social system in a part of the states, could not restore, but would inevitably result in the final destruction of both the Constitution and the Union, is he not to be allowed the right of an American citizen to appeal to the judgment of the people for a change of policy by the constitutional remedy of the ballot-box?

They do not call upon your excellency as suppliants, praying the revocation of the order During the war with Mexico many of the pobanishing Mr. Vallandigham, as a favor; but,litical opponents of the administration then in but by the authority of a convention represent- power thought it their duty to oppose and deing a majority of the citizens of the State of nounce the war, and to urge before the people Ohio, they respectfully ask it as a right due to of the country that it was unjust, and prosean American citizen, in whose personal injury cuted for unholy purposes. With equal reathe sovereignty and dignity of the people of son it might have been said of them that their Ohio, as a free state, have been offended.- discussions before the people were calculated And this duty they perform the nore cordially to discourage enlistments, to prevent the from the consideration, that, at a time of great raising of troops," and to induce desertions national emergency, pregnant with danger to from the army and leave the government withour Federal Union, it is all important that the out an adequate military force to carry on the true friends of the Constitution and the Union, war. If the freedom of speech and of the however they may differ as to the mode of ad- press are to be suspended in time of war, then ministering the government, and the measures The essential element of popular government most likely to be successful in the maintenance to effect a change of policy in the constitutionof the Constitution and the restoration of the al mode is at an end. The freedom of speech Union, should not be thrown into hostile con- and of the press is indispensable, and necesflict with each other. sarily incident to the nature. of popular government itself. If any inconvenience or evils arise from its exercise they are unavoidable. On this subject you are reported to have said further:

The arrest, unusual trial and banishment of Mr. Vallandigham, have created wide-spread and alarming disaffection among the people of the state, not only endangering the harmony of the friends of the Constitution and the Union, and tending to disturb the peace and tranquility of the state, but also impairing that confi

"It is asserted, in substance, that Mr. Vallandigham was, by a military commander, seized and tried for no ether reason than words addressed to a public meeting in

criticism of the course of the administration, and in condemnation of the military order of the general.' Now, if there be no mistake about this, if there was no other reason for the arrest, then I concede that the arrest was wrong. But the arrest, I understand, was made for a very different reason. Mr. Vallandigham avows his hostility to the

war on the part of the Union; and his arrest was made because he was laboring, with some effect, to prevent the raising of troops, to encourage desertions from the army, and to leave the rebellion without an adequate military force to suppress it. He was not arrested because he was damaging the political prospects of the administration, or the personal interest of the commanding general, but because he was damaging the army, upon the existence and vigor of which the life of the nation depends. He was warring upon the military, and this gave the military constitutional jurisdiction to lay hands upon him. If Mr. Vallandigham was not damaging the military power of the country, then his arrest was made on mistake of facts, which I would be glad to correct on reasonable satisfactory

evidence."

ever, in his judgment, the public safety requires it?

True it is, the article of the constitution which defines the various powers delegated to Congress, declares that "the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless where, in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." But this qualification or limitation upon this restriction upon the powers of Congress has no reference to, or connection with, the other constitutional guarantees of public liberty. Expunge from the Constitution this limitation upon the power of Congress to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, and yet the the other guarantees of personal liberty would remain unchanged.

Although a man might not have a constituIn answer to this, permit the undersigned to tional right to have an immediate investigation say, first, that neither the charge, nor the made as to the legality of his arrest upon specifications in support of the charge, on which habeas corpus, yet his right to a speedy and Mr. Vallandigham was tried, impute to him public trial by an impartial jury of the state the act of laboring either to prevent the rais- and district wherein the crime shall have been ing of troops, or to encourage desertion from committed," will not be altered; neither will the army; secondly, that no evidence on the his right to the exemption from "cruel and untrial was offered with a view to support, or even usual punishments; nor his right to be secure tended to support, any such charge. In what in his person, houses, papers, and effects, instance, and by what act, did he either dis- against unreasonable seizures and searches; courage enlistments or encourage desertions nor his right not to be deprived of life, liberty, from the army? Who is the man who was discour- or property, without due process of law; nor aged from enlisting, and who encouraged to his right not to be held to answer for a capital desert by any act of Mr. Vallandigham? If it or otherwise infamous offense, unless on prebe assumed that perchance some person might sentment or indictment of a grand jury, be in have been discouraged from enlisting, or that any wise changed. And certainly the restricsome person might have been encouraged to tion upon the power of Congress to suspend desert, on account of hearing Mr. Vallandig- the writ of habeas corpus, in time of insurrecham's views as to the policy of the war as ation or invasion, could not affect the guarantee means of restoring the Union, would that have laid the foundation for his conviction and banishment?

If so, upon the same grounds, every political opponent of the Mexican war might have been convicted and banished from the country. When gentlemen of high standing and extensive influence, including your excellency, opposed, in the discussions before the people, the policy of the Mexican war, were they "warring upon the military," and did this "give the military constitutional jurisdiction to lay hands upon" them? And, finally, the And, finally, the charge, in the specifications upon which Mr. Vallandigham was tried, entitled him to a trial before the civil tribunals, according to the express provisions of the late acts of Congress, approved by yourself, July 17, 1862, and March 3, 1863, which were manifestly designed to supercede all necessity or pretext for arbitrary military arrests.

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. The Constitution provides for no limitation upon, or exceptions to, the guarantees of personal liberty, except as to the writ of habeas corpus. Has the President, at the time of invasion or insurrection, the right to engraft limitations or exceptions upon these constitutional guarantees, when

that the freedom of speech and of the press shall not be abridged.

It is sometimes urged that the proceedings in the civil tribunals are too tardy and ineffective for cases arising in times of insurrection or invasion. It is a full reply to this to say, that arrests by civil process may be equally as expeditious and effective as arrests by military orders. True, a summary trial and punishment are not allowed in the civil courts. But if the offender be under arrest and imprisoned, and not entitled to discharge on writ of habeas corpus, before trial, what more can be required for the purposes of the government? The idea that all the constitutional guarantees of personal liberty are suspended throughout the country at a time of insurrection or invasion in any part of it, places us upon a sea of uncertainty, and subjects the life, liberty and property of every citizen to the mere will of a military commander, or what he may say that he considers the public safety requires. Does your Excellency wish to have it understood that you hold that the rights of every man throughout this vast country, in time of invasion or insurrecion, are subject to be annulled whenever you may say that you consider the public safety requires it?

|
You are further reported as having said, that
the constitutional guarantees of personal lib-
erty have

"No application to the present case we have in hand,

In their name, we ask that, by a revocation of the order of his banishment, Mr. Vallandifferent grounds, and the proceedings following accorded digham may be restored to the enjoyment of with the grounds of the arrests," &c.

"Expunge from the Constitution this limitation upon the power of Congress to suspend the writ of habeas cor

pus, and yet the other guarantees of personal liberty

would remain unchanged."

cluding those of Mr. Vallandigham, ch are not different in principle from the other, have been for prevention, and not for punishment as injunctions to stay injury-as proceedings Doubtless if this clause of the Constitution, to keep the peace-and hence, like proceedimproperly called as I think a limitation upon ings in such cases, and for like reasons, they the power of Congress, were expunged the have not been accompanied with indictments, other guarantees would remain the same; but or trials by juries, nor, in a single case, by any the question is, not how those guarantees punishment whatever beyond what is purely would stand, with that clause out of the Conincidental to the prevention. The original stitution, but how they stand with that clause sentence of imprisonment in Mr. Vallandigremaining in it, in cases of rebellion or inva- ham's case was to prevent injury to the militasion, involving the public safety. If the liber- ry service only, and the modification of it was ty could be indulged of expunging that clause, made as a less disagreeable mode to him of seletter and spirit, I really think the constitu- curing the same prevention. tional argument would be with you. My general view on this question was stated in the Albany response, and hence I do not state it now. I 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 conserved and made available in the last resort; 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 Constitution the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus itself may be suspended when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

I am unable to perceive an insult to Ohio in the case of Mr. Vallandigham. Quite surely, nothing of the sort was or is intended. I was wholly unaware that Mr. Vallandigham was, at the time of his arrest, a candidate for the Démocratic nomination for governor, until so informed by your reading to me resolutions of the convention. I am grateful to the State of Ohio for many 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 I understand, that, according to my own position in the Albany response, Mr. Vallandigham should be released; and this because, as you claim, he has not damaged the You ask in substance, whether I really claim military service by discouraging enlistments, that I may override all the guaranteed rights encouraging desertions, or otherwise; and that of individuals, on the plea of conserving the if he had, he should have been turned public safety--when I may choose to say the over to the civil authorities under récent acts public safety requires it. This question, di- of Congress. I certainly do not know that Mr. vested of the phraseology calculated to repre- Vallandigham has specifically, and hy direct sent me as struggling for arbitrary personal | language, advised against enlistments, and in prerogative, is either simply a question who favor of desertion and resistance to drafting. shall decide, or an affirmation that nobody shall decid, what the public safety does require in cases of rebellion or invasion. The Constitution contemplates the question as likely to occur for decision, but it does not expressly declare who is to decide it. By necessary implication, when rebellion or invasion comes, the decision is to be made, from time to time; and I 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 responsibility of making it. If he uses the power justly, the same people will probably justify him; if he abuses it, he is in their hands to be dealt with by all the modes they have reserved to themselves in the Constitution [But how can this be done when free discussion is arbitrarily forbidden?]

The earnestness 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 punishments in times of peace, induces me to add a word to what I said on that point in the Albany response. You claim that men may, if they choose, embarrass those whose duty it is to combat a giant rebellion, and then be dealt with only in turn as if there were no rebellion. The Constitution itself rejects this view. The military arrests and detentions which have been made, in

We all know that combinations, armed in some instances, to resist the arrest of deserters, began several months ago; that more recently the like has appeared in resistance to the enrollment preparatory to a draft; and that quite a number of asassinations have occurred from the same animus. These had to be met by military force, and this again has led to bloodshed and death. And now, under a sense of responsibility more weighty and enduring than any which is merely official, I solemnly declare my belief that this hindrance of the military, including maiming and murder, is due to the course in which Mr. Vallandigham has been engaged, in a greater degree than to any other cause; and is due to him personally in a greater degree than to any other one man.

These things have been notorious, known to all, and, of course, known to Mr. Vallandigham. Perhaps I would not be wrong to say they originated with his especial friends and adherents. With perfect knowledge of them, he has frequently, if not constantly, made speeches in Congress and before public assemblies; and if it can be shown that with these things staring him in the face he has ever uttered a word of rebuke or counsel against them, it will be a fact greatly in his favor with me, and one of which, as yet, I am totally ignorant. When it is known that the whole burden