PUBLIC DOCUMENTS. 



805 



couraged to desert, on account of hearing Mr. Vallan- 

 digham's views as to the policy of the war as a means 

 of restoring the Union, would that have laid the foun- 

 dation for his conviction and banishment? If so, upon 

 the same grounds every political opponent of the Mex- 

 ican war might have been convicted and banished 

 from the country. 



When gentlemen of high standing and extensive in- 

 fluence, including your Excellency, opposed, in the dis- 

 cussions before the pe_ople, 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 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 17th, 1862, and 

 March 3d, 1863, which were manifestly designed to 

 supersede all necessity or pretext for arbitrary mili- 

 tary 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 excep- 

 tions 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 en- 

 graft limitations or exceptions upon these constitu- 

 tional guarantees whenever, in his judgment, the pub- 

 lic safety requires it? 



True it is, the article of the Constitution which de- 

 fines the various powers delegated to Congress declares 

 that " the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall 

 not be suspended unless when, in case 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 connec- 

 tion with the other constitutional guarantees of per- 

 sonal liberty. Expunge from the Constitution this 

 limitation upon the power of Congress to suspend the 

 writ of habeas corpus, and yet the other guarantees 

 of personal liberty would remain unchanged. 



Although a man might not have a constitutional 

 right to have an immediate investigation made as to 

 the_ legality of his arrest upon habeas corpus, yet his 

 " right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial 

 jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall 

 have been committed" will not be altered; neither 

 will his right to the exemption from " cruel and un- 

 usual punishment," nor his right to be secure in his 

 person, houses, papers, and effects, against unreason- 

 able seizures and searches, nor his right not to be 

 deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due pro- 

 cess of law, nor his right not to be held to answer 

 for a capital or otherwise infamous oS'ence, unless on 

 presentment or indictment of a grand jury, be in any- 

 wise changed. 



And certainly the restriction upon the power of Con- 

 gress to suspend the writ of habeas corpus in time of 

 insurrection or invasion, could not affect the guarantee 

 that the freedom of speech and of the press shall not 

 be abridged. It is sometimes urged that the proceed- 

 ings 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 pro- 

 cess may be equally as expeditious and effective as ar- 

 rests 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 a discharge on writ of habeas corpus 

 before trial, what more can be required for the purpo- 

 ses of the Government ? The idea that all the consti- 

 tutional 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 un- 

 certainty, and subjects the life, liberty, and property 

 of every citizen to the mere will of a military com- 

 mander, or what he may say that he considers the pub- 

 lic safety requires. Does your Excellency wish to have 

 it understood that you hold that the rights of every 



man throughout this vast country are subject to be an- 

 nulled whenever you may say that you consider the 

 public safety requires it, in time of invasion or insur- 

 rection ? 



You are further reported as having said that the 

 constitutional guarantees of personal liberty have " no 

 application to the present case we have in hand, be- 

 cause the arrests complained of were not made for 

 treason that is, not for the treason defined in -the 

 Constitution, and upon the conviction of which the 

 punishment is death nor yet were they made to hold 

 persons to answer for capital or otherwise infamous 

 crimes ; nor were the proceedings following in any 

 constitutional or legal sense 'criminal prosecutions.' 

 The arrests were made* on totally different grounds, 

 and the proceedings following accorded with the 

 grounds of the arrests," Ac. 



The conclusion to be drawn from this position of 

 your Excellency is, that where a man is liable to " a 

 criminal prosecution," or is charged with a crime 

 known to the laws of the land, he is clothed with all 

 the constitutional guarantees for his safety and secu- 

 rity from wrong and injustice; but that where he 

 is not liable to "a criminal prosecution," or charged 

 with any crime known to the laws, if the President or 

 any military commander shall say that he considers 

 that the public safety requires it, this man may be put 

 outside of the pale of the constitutional guarantees, 

 and arrested without charge of crime, imprisoned with- 

 out knowing what for, and any length of time, or be 

 tried before a court martial and sentenced to any kind 

 of punishment, unknown to the laws of the land, which 

 the President or the military commander may see pro- 

 per to impose. 



Did the Constitution intend to throw the shield of 

 its securities around the man liable to be charged with 

 treason as defined by it, and yet leave the man not 

 liable to any such charge unprotected by the safe- 

 guards of personal liberty and personal security? Can 

 a man not in the military or naval service, nor within 

 the field of the operations of the army, be arrested and 

 imprisoned without any law of the land to authorize 

 it? Can a man thus, in civil life, be punished without 

 any law defining the offence and prescribing the pun- 

 ishment ? If the President or a court martial may 

 prescribe one kind of punishment unauthorized by 

 law, why not any other kind? Banishment is an un- 

 usual punishment and unknown to our laws- If the 

 President has the right to prescribe the punishment of 

 banishment, why not that of death and confiscation of 

 property ? If the President has the right to change 

 the punishment prescribed by the court martial from 

 imprisonment to oanishment, why not from imprison- 

 ment to torture upon the rack or execution upon the 

 gibbet? 



If an indefinable kind of constructive treason is to 

 be introduced end engrafted upon the Constitution, un- 

 known to the laws of the land and subject to the will 

 of the President whenever an insurrection or invasion 

 shall occur in any part of this vast country, what 

 safety or security will be left for the liberties of the 

 people ? 



The constructive treason that gave the friends of 

 freedom so many years of toil and trouble in England 

 were inconsiderable compared to this. The precedents 

 which you make will become a part of the Constitution 

 for your successors, if sanctioned ami acquiesced in by 

 the people now. 



The people of Ohio are willing to cooperate zealously 

 with you in every effort warranted by the Constitution 

 to restore the Union of the States, but they cannot con- 

 sent to abandon those fundamental principles of civil 

 liberty which are essential to their existence as a free 

 people. 



In their name, we ask that, bv a revocation of the 

 order of his banishment, Mr. \ allandigham may be 

 restored to the enjoyment of those rights of which they 

 believe he has been unconstitutionally deprived. 



We have the honor to be respectfully, yours, Ac. : 

 M. Burchard, Chairman, 19th Dist. ; David A. Houk, 

 Sec'y, 3d Dist. ; George Bliss, 14th Dist. ; T. W. Bart- 



