. :
-1-I'l I " sa ) I - A
.(,. t.i. . ,E' . •
. ,i":--I.....,. .3. .
. _i,' -.'
T...
PUBLISHED WEEKLY IN THE CITY OF READING, BERKS COUNTY, .Pi $1,50.A YEAR IN ADVisiNCE.
J. LAWRENCE- GETZ, EDITOR.]
PUBLISHED EVERY SATURDAY HORNING
' jorfli-Wext corner of Pena Fifth xeeet
oining the Farmers' Bank o and f Rooting.r . tu t -
TBR3IS OF SUBSCRIPTION
61.50 a yrar, payalde in advance.
1,00 for six menthe, in advance.
fn CLVSS Four copini for $3, in advance-.
Ten Wens for Ed,
1 All papers discontinued at thce orpireflon of the
ti„ e raid Jur.
RATES OF ADVERTISING IN THE GAZETTE.
It. 3t. Imo. 3mo. 6mo. ly
7 square, fi ii.ettetor less , 00 50 70
2 2,110 3.00 0,00
50 1,00 1,23 ,00 5,00 8,00
" 20 " 1,00 2,04) 2,50 5,00 5,00 15,00
3 " 20 " 1,50 3,00 3,75 7,50 13,00 20,00
[Larger Advertisements In proportion.]
Esocutors' and Administrators' Notices, 6 insertion 1,7,00
Auditors' Natleas and Legal HOllcalt. 3 1,60
Spored Notices, as reading matter, 10 eta. a line for one
la-ertion.
El , Marriage notices 25 cents each. Deaths will be
pehnebed gratintonelp.
Ilkir ill Obituary Notices, Reallations of Beneficial and
~tier Private Pauclatlone, will be clierged tor t VW 4t4vor
-11- .......lc, at the above rates.
4.1 - advertisements for Religions, Charitable and Edo
estional ebjects, one ball the above rates.
dee All advertising Will be considered payable in casb,
us the first insertion.
estly etirertisent shall have the privilege (:f desired)
e, twirled their suiverlieemente eadrY thrti , bnekl — but
not oftener. Any additional renewals, or advertising ox.
re...beg the amount contracted for, will be charged faint
fir one-half the rates above specified for transient adver-
Weruenta
Vesely sdvertisers will be charged the same rates es
It2lll eat advertisers for all matters awl relating altfeffp
tt,ir bovioess.
PRINTING OF EVERY DESCRIPTION•
Execot&t in a superior manner, at the very MioeBt prices.
ont agdortment of Jos TYPO IS large and fashionable, and
our Work speaks for itself.
BLANKS OF ALL KINDS,
Including PANCEIXENT and Parra DEED; MORVIAGEB,
POMIS, ARTICLES OP AeRSEMENT, LimaiS, and a variety of
JCaTICEd . BLANKS, kept oonetantly for sale, or printed to
or3er.
DANIEL E. SCHROEDER,
ATTORNEY AT LAW.
OFFICE WITH J. RAGENNIAN, PENN ST.,
above Sixth, Reading, Pa. [June 6-em
C. A Leopold,
A TTORICET AT LAW.—OFFICE IN COURT
A
Street, gut door below Sixth, Reading, Pa.
3107 83, 1863-17
JESSE G. HAWIAIY,
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
NAS REMOVED HIS OFFICE TO NORTH
Sixth Street, opposite the Keystone House, Reading.
April 11, 1863-0
JOHN BILIESTON,
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
OFFICE WITH A. B. WANNER. NORTH
Vi Sixth Street. (above the Court House,) Beading, Pa.
February 41,1863-1 y
REMOVAL.
WiLLIAM LIVINGOOD, ATTORNEY AT
LAW. has removed hie Mike to the north sids of
Court street fleet door below Sixth. [dee 22-if
Charles Davis,
ATTORNEY AT LAW—HAS REMOVED HIS
Office to the 0111ce lately occupied by the Hon. Dalai'
vian, deviated, In Sixth street, opposite the Coati.
Bonze. [april 14
Daniel lanientront,
ATTORNEY AT LAW—OFFICE IN NORTH
girth dreg, corner of Mort alloy. tang 1141
David Neff,
WHOLESALE AND RETAIL DEALER IN
YY Foreign and Domestic DRY DODDS, No. 25 East
Face street, Iroxiding, Pa. (March 10, 1980.
LIVINCOOD'S
United States Bounty, Back Pay and
Pension Office,
COURT STREET, NEAR SIXTH.
AVING BEEN ENGAGED IN COLLECT
' I ing claims against the Government, I feel confident
tied all who have heretofore employed me will cheerfully
endorse my promptness and fidelity. My charges are
ruoderate and no charge made until obta
WILLIAM Hined. LIVINUOOD,
oet Attorney at Law, Court St., Boallag,
DISCHARGED SOLDIERS
CAN NOW OBTAIN THEIR $lOO BOUNTY
[ots the S. Government. A lA applicationl t o rFpßß,
March 7-ti] Collection Cake, Conn Street, Reeding.
ASA M. HART,
(Late Hart & Mayer,)
jrEALER IN FOREIGN AND AMERICAN
DRY GOODS, CaRPETINGS, ha, Wholesale and
all, at Philadelphia prices. Sign of the Golden Bee Hive,
No 14 Bad Penn Square. lapel 17-tf
P. Bushong & Sons,
AlAlsil/FACTUSEILB OF BURNING FLUID,
sta.suto,tro,ALLea Alcohol: also,
- 011, Which they will sell at the lowest Wholesale
prices, at Reading. Pa.
lir Orders respectfully solicited.
G. M. M/LLBR, M. D.,
tolectic Physician and Surgeon,
AGRADUATE OF THE ECLECTIC MEDI
cal College Philadelphia, offers his professional ser
sices to the citizens of Hamburg and vicinity. Painful
Surgical operations, such ae Setting Broken and Dislocated
Limbs, Amputations, Cutting Cancers, Tumors. &a, Will
lie performed wader the inguence of Ether, At the &Meat
of the patient.
Office at ids residence in Main street,Harobarg, Pa
Bay 9, 1563-tt
DR: T. 'YARDLEY BROWN,
SURGEON DENTIST.
GRADUATEOP PENNSYLVANIA
• Dental College. Teeth extracted by Fran
-14 a cis' Etectro Magnetic process, with Clarke's
improvement. yith this method teeth are
xtracted with much less pain than the usual way. No
entre charge. Mice in Fitth street, opposite the Presbyte
rian Chersh. [april 2•17
CHARLES LANCASTER, •
MEDICAL ELECTRICIAN,
Fourth Street, *here Penn, Reeding.
January 24,1888-t[
PENSIONS,
BOUNTIES & BACK PAY.
APPLICATIONS PROMPTLY ATTENDED
to. Torso moderato and no ath g e uxlil Obis M&
A. 0. GREEN, Attorney at Law,
Jan 31-43mo] Cake in Court Etreet, Reading.
SOLDIERS'
DOONTir-ZIMODMIZ. DACZ-VAIr
AND PENSION CLAIMS
PROMPTLY ATTENDED TO BY
A. K. STAUFFER,
Attorney at - Later, °Mee in Court Street ,
Jan at -u] BEADINO, PA.
F. P. HELLER,
WATCHMAKER, JEWELER,
AND DEALER IN
WATCHES, CLOCKS, JEWELRY,
§
POONS, SPECTACLES, GOLD PENS, &c.,
Sign et the WATCII,” No. WM Fte Fenn
Weet, above Siath, north side, Reading, Fa.
/Or Keay article warranted to be what It is sold for
Watches, Cloaks, Jewelry, no., repaired With particular
attention, and guaranteed. [fob 1-tt
tOR SALE AT THE OLD JAIL, 200 WHITE
Cintssite Tea Setts of the =tweed style.
Oft HALE AT THE OLD JAIL, 300 ( 11kAHITE
Dinner Salta of the newest style.
1 4 1 OR SALE AT THE OLD JAIL, 1000 SETS
Common Teaware.
1:1.4 OR SALE AT THE OLD TAIL, THE LARD
eat assortment of Liverpool Ware ever offered in
tog-
FOR SALE AT THE OLD JAIL, A LARGE
assortment of Pittsburgh, Huston and French Glass
ware of every description.
I, I OM. SALE AT THE OLD JAIL, THE CHOW
_I: est variety of liar and Hotel Glass, China and Queens
ware fernitnre ever offered in Reading.
FOR SALE AT THE OLD JAIL, 60 BARRELS
Mackerel at Philadelphia. pric e
march 22 WILLIAM RHOADS.. Jr.
TAME OLD GOVERNMENT JAVA COFFEE
fa medal/ Male, j um/ rnaeivad and for elle it
111000CK'S,
40 South Fifth Street.
Jane 27
/11U1tREI AM) FRENCH PRUNES.—FOR
Sale at. FEOCOCK'S,
Slay 16J 10 South FM Street.
CIVIL VS. MILITARY LAW.
FDDNIDDN'r LINCOLN AND TDB OHIO
CODAI/TTKE,
Demand for the Release of Mr.
Vallandlghana.
IC , Oit.l:4 o .kr:V4lLK•lc 4, ,b - f- - 3 - 0;1••)1
THE LETTER TO THE PRESIDENT
WASHINGTON CITY, June 26, 1803.
To His Excellency, the Ptesident of the United
OM
The undersigned, having been appointed a
committee, under-A,,he authority of the resolutions
of the kitate..Convention held at the city of COI--
utubue, Ohio, on the 11th Ina., to communicate
with you on the subject of the arrest and banish
ment of Clement L. Vallandigham, most respect
fully 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 stale that the Convention was one in which all
parts of the State were represented, anti•one of
the most respectable as to umbers and charac
ter, oue of the most earnest and sincere in sup—
port of the Constitution and the Union, ever hold
in that State.
Resolved, 1. That the wilt 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. With
out 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 beat jutignient tivente 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 prop
erty are seldom endangered ; in war they are
ever in peril.
4. That we now say to all whom it may con
cern, not by way of threat, but calmly and firmly,
that we will not surrender these rights, nor sub.
mit 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 best, 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 Consti
tution and within the Union, by the peaceful but
powerful agency of the suffrages of a free people.
14. That we will earnestly support every eon
stitutional messily, tending to preserve the Union
of the States. No men have a greater in
terest 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. We are, as we ever have
been, the devoted friends of the Constitution and
the Union, and we have no sympathy with the
enemies of either. -
15. That the arrest, imprisonment, pretended
trial, and actual banishment of Clement. L. Val
landigham, 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 pre
tended crime that of uttering words of legitimate
criticism upon the conduct or the Administration
in power, and of I.ppealiErg to the ballot box for
a change of policy—(stud 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 mud tie a palpa
ble violation of the following provisions of the
Constitution of the United. States :
1. "Congress shall make no law * *
abridging the freedon 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
unnamable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated; and no warrant shall issue, but upon
probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation,
and particularly describing the place to be
searched 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, ex
cept 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 amused
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 ascer
tained 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 corn
micted within the same.
(march 12
16. That Clement L. Vallandigham was, at the
time of bis 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 thatright, by
his arrest and banishment, was en unmerited
imputation upon their intelligence and loyalty,
as well as a violation of the Constitution.
17. That we respectfully, but most earnestly,
oall upon the President of the United States to
restore Clement L. Vallandigham to hie home in
Ohio ? and that a committee of one from each
Congressional district of the State, to be acted
ed 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 reit
erate the facts connected with the arrest, trial
and banishment of Mr. Vallandigham—they are
well known to the President, and are of public
history—nor to enlarge upon the position taken
by the eenvention, nor to recapitulate the eon•
stitutional provisions which it is believed have
been contravened; they have been stated at
length, and with clearness, in the resolutions
which have been recite& The undersigned con
tent themselves with a brief reference to other
suggestions pertinent to the subject.
They do not call upon your Excellency, as
au ppugeta, praying the revocation of the order
banishing Mr. Vallandigham, as a favor ; but by
the authority of a Convention representing a
majority of the citizens of the State of Ohio, they
respectfully ask it SS a right due to an American
citizen, in whose personal injury the sovereignty
and dignity of the people of Ohio, as a free State,
have been offended. And this duty they perform
the more cordially from the 'consideration that,
at a time of great national emergency, pregnant
with danger to our Federal Union, it is all im—
portant that the true friends of the Constitution
and the Union, however they may differ as to the
mode of administering the Government, and the
measures most , likely to be successful in the
maintenance of the Constitution and the restora
tion of the Union, Should not be thrown into con—
flict with each other.
The arrest, unusual trial and banishment of
Mr. Vallandigham, have created widespread and
alarming disaffection among the people of the
State, not only endangering the harmony of the
friends of the Constitution and the Unita 6 , 1 ,d
tending to disturb the peace and tranquility of
the State, but also impairing that confidence in
the fidelity of your Administration to the great
landmarks of Iree government, essential to a
paceful 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 af
ford 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. Vallandig,
ham 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 Presi
dent and even with some of his own political
party, as to the true and most effectual means of
maintaining the Constitution and resteehig the
Union; but this difference of opinion does not
prove him to be unfaithful to his duties as an
American citizen. If adman devotedly attached
to the Constitution and the. Union, conscientious
ly believes that, from the inherent nature of the
Federal compact, the war, in the present condi
tion 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, could not restore,
but would inevitably result in the final destruc—
tion 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 'l'
During the war with Mexico many of the po
Wiest opponents of the Administration then in
power thought it their duty to oppose and de—
towage the war, and IQ up; kof9re.the people
of the country that it was unjust, and prosecuted
for unholy purposes. With equal reason it might
have been said of them that their discussions
before the people were calculated to discourage
enlistments, " to prevent the raising of troops,"
and to induce desertions from the army, and
leave the Government without an adequate mili
tary force to carry on the war.
If the freedom of speech anti of the press are to
be suspended in time of war, then the essential
element of popular government to effect a change
of policy in the constitutional mode is at an end.
The freedom of speech and of the press is indis
pensable. and necessarily incident to the nature
of popular government itself. If any inconveni
ence or evils ado from its exercise, they are
unavoidable.
On this subject you are reported to have said,
further:
"It is asserted, in substance, that Mr. Vallan
digbatn was, by a military commander, seized and
tried for no other 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, thee I concede that the
arrest was wrong. Itut.the arrest, I understand,
was made for a very different reason. Mr. Val
landigham avows his hostility to tho war on the
part of the Union; and his arrest was made be
cause he was laboring with some effect, to pre
vent 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 interests 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 mili—
tary, and this gave the military constitutional
jurisdiction to lay hands upon him. If VI%
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."
In answer to this, Malt IPS to say, first, that
neither the charge, nor the specification in sup
port of the charge on which Mr. Vallandigham
was tried impute to him the act of either labor
ing to prevent the raising of troops or to en
courage desertions from the army. Secondly,
no eviednoe on the trial was offered with a !dew
to support, or even tended to support, any such
charge. In what instance and by what act did
he either discourage enlistments or encourage
desertions from the army ? Who is the man who
was discouraged from enlisting, and who en
couraged to desert, by any set of Mr. Vallandig
ham ? If it be assumed that perchance some
person might have been discouraged from enlist
ing, or that some person might have been en
couraged to desert, on account of bearing Mr.
Vallandigham's views as to the policy of the war
as a 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 coun
try.
When gentlemen of high standing and exten
sive influence ' including your Excellency, op
posed, in the discussions before the people, the
policy of the Mexican war, were they "warring
upon the military," and did this " give the mili
tary constitutional jurisdiction to lay bands
upon" them? And, finally, the charge in the
specifications upon which Mr, Vallandigham wee
tried entitled him to a trial before the civil tri
bunals, according to the express provisions of
the late acts of Congress, approved by yourself
July 17th, 1862, and March 3, 1863, which were
manifestly designed to supersede all necessity
or pretext for arbitrary military arrests.
The undersigned are unable to agree with you
in the opinion you have expressed, that the Con
stitution is different in time of insurrection or
invasion from what it is in time of peace and
public security. The Constitution proVldell for
no limitation upon or exceptions to the guaran
tees of personal liberty, except as to the writ of
habeas corpus. Ras the President, at the time of
invasion or insurrection, the right to engraft
limitations or ezoeptione upon these Constitu
tional guarantees, whenever, 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
oases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety
may require it." But this qualification or
limi
tation upon this restriction upon the powers of
Congress, has no reference to or connection with
the other constitutional guarantees of personal
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 Un
changed.
Although a man might not have a constitution
al 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 where
in the crime shall have been committed," will
not be altered ; neither will his right to the ex
emption from "cruel and unusual punishments;"
nor his right to be secure in his person, houses,
papers and effects, against unreasonable seizures
and searches; nor his right not to be deprived
of life,:.liberty or property, without due process
of law ; nor his right not to be held to answer
for a capital or otherwise infamous offence, un
less on presentment or indictment of a grand
jury; be in anywise changed.
And certainly the restriction upon the power
of Congress to suspend the writ of habeas corpus,
in time of insurrection or invasion, could not af
fect the guaranty that the freedom of speech and.
of the press shall not be abridged. It is some
times urged that the proceedings in the civil tri
bunals are too tardy and ineffective for eases
arising in times of insurrection or invasion. It
is a full reply to this to say, that arrests by civil
process may be equally expeditious and effective
as arrests by military orders.
True, a summary trial and punishment are not
SATURDAY MORNJNG, JULY 25, 1863.
I allowed in the civil courts. But if the offender
bo under arrest and imprisoned, and not entitled
to a discharge un writ of habeas corpus, before
trial, what more can be required for the purpose
of the Government ? The idea that all the con
stitutional guarantees of personalliberty are sus
pended, throughout the country, at a time of in
surrection 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
more will of a military commander, or what he
may say that he considers the public safety re
quires. 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 annulled whenever you may say that you.
consider the public safety requires it, in time of
invasion or insurrection?
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, because 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 IA death—
nor yet were they made to hold persons to an
swer for capital or otherwise infamous crime;
nor were the proceedings following in any Con
stitutional or legal sense "criminal prosecul ions.'
The arrests were made on totally different
grounds, and the proceedings, following accord
ed with the grounds of the arrests," .Ste.
The conclusion to be drawn from Ihie 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 oonstitulional guarantees for
his safety anti security 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 safely requires it, this man may be put
outside of the pale of the couetitutional guaran
tees ; and arrested without charge of crime, im
prisoned without knowing what for, anti any
length of time, or bo tried before a court martial
and sentenced to any kind of punishment, un
known to the laws of the land, which the Presi
dent or the military commander may deem proper
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 un
protected by the safeguard 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 im
prisoned without any law of the land to authorise
it? Can a man thus, in civil life, be punished
without any law defining the offence and pre
scribing the punishment? If the President, or a
court martial, may prescribe one kind of punish
ment unauthorized by law, why not any other
kind? Banishment is an unusual punishment,
anti unknown to our laws. If the President has
the right to prescribe the punishment of banish
ment, 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 banishment, why
not from imprisonment to torture upon the rack,
or execution upon the gibbet 2
If an indefinable kind of constructive treason
is to be introduced and engrafted upon the Con
alit/Ilion, unknown 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 r
The constructive treasons that gartithe 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 and acquiesced: in by the people now.
The people of Ohio are wilting to oo•operate
zealously with you in every effort warranted by
the Constitution to restore the Union of the
States, but they cannot consent to abandon those
fundamental principles of civil liberty which are
essential to their existence as a free people.
In their name, we ask that, by a revocation of
the order of his banishment, Mr. Vallandigham
may be restored to the enjoyment of those rights
of which they believe he has been unconstitu.
Clonally deprived.
We have the honor to be
Respectfully, yours, &0.,
M. BIROUARD, Chairman, 19th Dist.
DAM A, MIVE, 894retilry, 2 4 Diet,
GEO. DLLs% 14th Dist.
T. W. BARTLEY', Bth Dist.
W. J. GORDON, 18th Dist.
JOHN O'NEKEL, 18th Dist.
O. A. WHITE, 6111 Dist.
W. E. FINCH, 12th Diet.
ALEXANDER Long; 2d Dist.
J. W. Wan's, 16th Dist.
JAB. R. Moan's, 15th Dist.
Geo. E. Qoavense, 7th Diet.
WARREN P. NOBLE, 9th Diet.
Geo. H. PetroLsros. 181 Dist.
W. A. IltrrenDss, 11th Dist.
ABNER L. BACKUS, 10th Diet.
J. F. MoKtaeey,•4th'Dist.
F. C. La Durso, 6th Dist.
Loots SCHAEFER 17th Dist.
THE REPLY O 1 THE PRESIDENT.
WAMINOTON, D. 0., Jana 29, 1863
" Gentlemen : The resolutions of the Ohio Demo•
erotic State Convention, which you present me,
together with your introductory and closing re—
marks, being in position and argument mainly
the Dante as the revolutions of the Democratic
meeting at Albany, New•liotk, I refer you to my
response to the latter as meeting most of the
points in the former. This response you evi—
dently used in preparing your remarks, and I
desire no more than that it be used with aeon—
racy. Ina lila& reading of your remarks, I.
only discover ohe inaccuracy in the matter which
I suppose you took from that paper. It is where
you say, " The undersigned are unable to agree
with you in the opinion you have expressed that
the Couelitutiou is different in time of 'notarisa
tion or invasion from what it is in time of peace
and public security."
A recurrence to the paper will show you that
I have not expressed the opinion you suppose.
I expressed the opinion that the Constitu
tion is different in its application in oases of re
bellion 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 pace whioh may not he
done in the other.
I dislike to waste a word on a merely personal
point, but I must respectfully assure you that
o_s_
you will find yourselves fault hou__ you ever
seek for ovidonoo to prove your assumption that
I " opposed in discussions before the people the
policy of the Mexican war."
You say: "Expunge from the Constitution
this limitation upon the power of Connell to
suspend the writ of habeas corpus, and yet the
other guarantees of personal liberty would re
main unchanged." Doubtless if this clause of
the Constitution, improperly called as I think a
limitation upon the power of Congress, wore ex
punged, the other guarantees would remain the
same; but the question is, not how those guar
antees would stand with that clause our of the
Constitution, but how they stand with that clause
remaining in it, in oases of rebellion or invasion,
involving the public safety. If the liberty could
be indulged of expunging that clause, letter and
spirit, I really think the constitutional argument
would be with you.
My general view on this question was st a ted
in the Albany response, and hence I do not state
it now. I only add that, as it 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 eases of rebellion and invasion the public
safety may require it.
You ask in substance whether I really claim
that I may over-ride all the guaranteed rights of
individuals, on the plea of conserving the public
safety—when I may choose to say the publio
safety requires it. This question, divested of
the phraseology calculated to represent me WI
struggling for an arbitrary personal prerogative,
is either simply a question who shall decide, or
an affirmation that nobody shall decide, what the
publio safety does require in eases 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 in
vasion comes, the decision is to be made, from
time to time; and I think the man whom, for
tho time, the people have, under the Constitu
tion, made the Commander-in-Chief of the 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 pro,
bably justify him ; if he abuses it, he is in their
hands, to be dealt with tby.all the modes they
have reserved to themselves under the Consti—
tution.
The earnestness with which you illelet that
persons can only in times of rebellion be lawfully
dealt with, in accordance with rules for criminal
trials and punishments in times of peace, indu
ces 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 against rebellion and then be
dealt with only in turn as if there were no re•
hellion. The Constitution itself rejects this
view. The military uremia and detentions which
have been made, including those of Mr. Vallan
digham, which are not different in principle from
the other, have been for PREVENTION, and not
for PUIIISIIIIIENT—ON injunctions to stay injury—
as proceedings to keep the peace—and kende,
like proceedings in such cases and for like rea
sons, they have not been accompanied with in
dictments, or trials by juries, nor, in a single
case, by any punishment whatever, beyond what
is purely incidental to the prevention. The ori
ginal sentence of imprisonment in Mr. Vallan
digham's case was to prevent injury to the
military service only, and the modification of it
was made as a less disagreeable mode to him of
Muting the same prevention.
I am unable to perceive an insult to Ohio in
the ease of Mr. Vallandigham. Quite surely
nothing of this sort was or is intended. I was
wholly unaware that Mr. Vallandigham was at
the time of his arrest a candidate for the Demo
°ratio nomination for Governor, until so inform
ed by your reading to me the resolutions of the
Convention. I an; grateful to the State of Ohio
for many things, especially for the brave soldiers
and officers she has given, in the present national
triale, to the armies of the Union.
You claim, as I understand, that according to
my own position in the Albany respose, Mr.
Vallandigham should be released ; and this be
cause, as you claim, he has not damaged the
Military BerViOe f by discouraging enlistments, en
eouraging desertions, or otherwise ; and that if
Ittihad, he should have been turned over to the civil
authorities under the recent acts of Congress. I
certainly do not know that Mr. Vallandigham has
specifically, and by direct language, advised
against enlistments, and in favor of desertion
and resistance to drafting. We all know that
combinations, armed in some instances, to re
sist 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 assassinations
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 endur
ing 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 °puree in which Mr. Vallandigham has
been engaged, in a greater degree than to any
other man. These things have been notorious,
known to all, and of course known to Mr. Val
landigham. 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 epeeohee
in Congrese, and before popular assemblies; and
if it can be shown that; with these things staring
him in the face, be 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, lam totally ignorant. When it is known
that the whole burden of his speeches has been
to stir up men against the prosecution of the
war, and that in the midst 9f resistance to it, he
has not been known in any instance to connsel
against such resistance, it is next to impossible
to repel the inference that he has counseled di
redly in favor of it. With all this before their
eyes, the Convention you represent have nomi
nated Mr. Vallandigham for Governor of Ohio;
and both they and you have declared the pur
pose to sustain the National Union by all con
stitutional means. But of course they and you,
in common, reserve to yourselves to decide what
are constitutional meads, and, nelike the Albany
meeting, you omit to state or intimate that in
your opinion an arnly is a Constitutional Means
of saving the Union against a rebellion, or even
to intimate that you are coneeione of an exist
ing rebellion being in progress with the avowed
object of destroying that very Union. At the
same time your nominee for Governor, in whose
behalf you appeal, is known to you and to the
world to declare against the use of an army to
suppress the rebellion. Your own attitude,
therefore, encourages desertion, resistance to the
draft and the like, because it teaches those who
incline to desert and to escape the draft to be
lieve it is your purpose to protect them, and to
hope that you will become strong enough to do
SO, After a pommel intereeuree with you. gen•
tlemen of the Committee, I cannot say I think
you desire this effect to follow your attitude, but
I assure you that both friends and enemies of
the Union look upon it in this light. It is a
substantial hope, and by eonaaquenee a real
strength to the enemy. It is a false hope, and
one which you would willingly dispel. I will
make the way exceedingly easy. I send you
duplicates of this letter in order that you, or a
majority of you, may; if you choose, indorse
your names upon one of them: . and return it
thus indorsed to me, with the understanding
that those signing are thereby committed to the
following propositions, and to nothing else :
. 1. That there is now a rebellion. in the United
States, UM object and tendency of which is to
destroy the national Union ; and that, in your
opinion, an army and navy are constitutional
means for suppressing that rebellion.
2, Two P 9 one of you will do anything which
in hie own judgment will tend to hinder the in-
crease or favor the decrease or lessen the effici
ency of the army or navy while engaged in the
effort to suppress that rebellion ; and
8. That each of you will, in his sphere, do all
he can to have the Olsen, soldiers and seamen
of the army and navy, while engaged in the ef
fort to suppress the rebellion, paid, fed, clad,
and otherwise well provided and supported.
And with the further understanding that, upon
receiving the letter and names thus endoreed, I
will cause them to be published, which publica
tion shall be, within itself, a revocation of the
order in relation to Mr. Vallandigham.
It will not escape observation that I consent
to the release of Mr. Vallandigham upon terms
not embracing any pledge from him or from
others, as to what he will or will not do. I do
this because he is not present to speak for him—
self, or to authorize others to speak for him ;
and hence, I shall expect, that on returning, he
would not put himself practically in antagonism
with the position of his friends. But I do it
chiefly because I thereby prevail on other influ
ential gentlemen of Ohio to so define their post.
Lion as to be of immense value to the army—thus
more than compensating for the consequences of
any mistake in allowing Mr. Vallandigham to
return, so that, on the whole the riblio safety
[VOL. XXIV-NO. f4.-WHOLE NO. 1978.
will not have suffered by IL Still, in regard to
Mr. Vallandigham and all others, I must here—
after, as heretofore, do so much as the public
service may seem to require. I have the honor
to be, Respectfully, yours, &0.,
THE REJOINDER
NEW-YORK Car, July 1, 1863.
To his Excellency, the President of the United Slates:
Sir—Your answer to the application of the
undersigned for a revocation of the order of
banishment of Clement L. Vallandigham requires
a reply, which they proceed with as little delay
as practicable to make.
They are not able to appreciate the force of
the distinction you make, between the Constitution
and the application of the Constitution, whereby
you assume that powers are delegated to the
President at the time of Invasion or insurrection,
in derogation of the plain language of the Con
stitution. The inherent provisions of the Con
stitution, remaining the same in time of insur
rection or invasion, as in time of peace, the
President can have no more right to disregard
their positive and imperative requirements at
the former time than at the latter. Because
some things may be done, by the terms of the
Constitution at the time of invasion or insurrec
don, which would not be required by the occa
sion, in time of peace, you assume that anythihy
whatever, even though not expressed by the Con
stitution, may be done on the occasion of insur
rection or invasion, which the l'resident may
choose to say is required by the public safety.
In plainer terms, because the writ of habeas
corpus may be suspended at time of invasion or
insurrection, you infer that all other provisions
of the Constitution having in view the protec
tion of the life, liberty and properly of the citi
zen, may be in like manner suspended. The
provision relating to the writ of habeas corpus,
being contained in the first part of the Constitu •
lion, the purpose of which is to define the powers
delegated to Congress, has no conneetion in lan
guage with the declaration of rights, as guaran
tees of personal liberty, contained in the addi
tional and amendatory articles, and inasmuch as
the provision relating to habeas corpus expressly
provides for its suspension, and the other provi
sions alluded to do not provide for any such
thing, the legal conclusion is, that the suspen
sion of the latter is unauthorized. The provi
sion for the writ of habeas corpus is merely
intended to furnish a summary Named', and not
the means whereby personal security is conserved,
in the final resort; while the other provisions' .
are guarantees of personal rights the suspension
of which puts an end to all pretence of tree
government. It is true Mr. Vallandigluem op ,
plied for a writ of habeas corpus as a summary
remedy against oppression. But the denial of
this did not take away his right to a speedy
public trial by an impartial jury, or deprive him
of hie other rights as an American citizen. Your
assumption of the right to suspend all the con
stitutional guarantees or personal liberty, and
even of the freedom of speech and of the press,
because the summary remedy of habeas corpus
may be suspended is at once startling and alarm
ing to all persons desirous of preserving free
government in this country.
The inquiry of the undersigned whether "you
hold that the rights of every man throughout
this vast country, in time of invasion or insur
rection, are subject to be annulled whenever you
may say thatyou consider - titti'publle safety re
quires it r was a plainikueetionongsguieed by
circumlocution, and intentledpiWypisitalicit
information. Your affirtnitilie - iriswer to. this
queetion. throws a shade - 306 the fondest anti
cipations of. the framers of the Constitution, who
flattered themselveathat they had provided safe
guards. against thelkltgeriit Whitia have ev.
beset and overihroweiree government in "other
ages and countries. YOUr ausWer is PO t 9 be
disguised by the phi)&iti 4 , , that the question
" is simply a question
affirmation that noboe . kl ithlik - the
public safely does requirerireftifOiliellion
or invasion." Our overrimaitiviits ditigned to
be a Government of law, settleditnd defined, and
not of the arbitrary will of a single man. As a
safeguard, the powers were delegated to the
legislative, executive and judichil branches of
the Government, and each made moordinate with
the others, and supreme within its ephere, and
thus a mutual cheek upon each other in case of
abuse of power. It has been the boast of the
American people that they had a written Consti
tution,
not only expressly defining, but also limit
ing the powers of the Government, and providing
effectual safeguards for personal liberty, securi
ty and property. And to make the matter more
positive and explicit, it was provided by the
amendatory , articles, nine and ten . , that " the
snuracrava In the Constitution of Chriaill Pisata
shall not be construed to deny or disparage others
retained by the people," and that "the powers
not delegated to the United States lity the Con
stitution, nor prohibited by it to the Scaleup are
reserved to the States respectively, or is the
people." With this care and precaution on the
part of our forefathers, who framed our institu
tions, it was not to be expected that, at so early
a day as this, a claim of the President to arbi
trary power, limited only by hie conception of
the requirements of the public safety, would
have been asserted. 'ln derogation of the Con
stitutional provisions making the President strict
ly an executive officer, and vesting all the dele
gated legislative power in- Congress, your
position, ae we understand it, would make your
will the rule of action and your declarations of the
requirements of the public safety the law of the
land. Our inquiry was not, therefore, "simply
a question who shall decide, or the affirmation
that nobody shall decide, what the public safety
requires." Our Government is a government of
taw, and it is the law-making power which ascer
tains what the public safety requires, and pre
scribes the rule of action ; and the duty of the
President is simply to execute the laws Gins ens
acted, and not to snake or annul laws. If any
exigency shall arise, the President has the power
to convene Congress at any time, to provide for
it, so that the plea of necessity furnishes no
reasenable pretext for any assumption of light
lative power.
. For a moment contemplate the consequences of
such a claim to power. Not only would the do
minion of the President be absolute over the
righte of individuals, but equally so over the
other department. of the Government. If be
should claim that the public safety required it,
he could arrest and imprison it judge for the con
scientious discharge of his duties, paralyze the
judicial power, or supereode it, by the substitu
tion of courts martial, subject to his own will,
throughout the whole country. If any one of
the States, even far removed from the rebellion,
should not sustain his plan for prosecuting time
war, he could, on the plea of public safety, annul
and set at defiance the State laws and authorities,
arrest and imprison the Governor of the State or
'the members of the Legislature, while in the
faithful discharge of their duties, or he could
absolutely control the action either of Congress
or of the Supreme Court, by arresting and im
prisoning its members, and upon the same ground
he Gould suspend the elective franchise, postpone
the elections, and declare the perpetuity of his
high prerogative. And neither the power of
impeachment nor the elections of the people
could be made available against such concentra
tion of power.
Surely it is not necessary to subvert free Gov
ernment in this country in order to put down the
rebellion ; and it cannot be done under the pretence
of putting down the rebellion. Indeed, it is
plain that your Administration has been weak
ened by the assumption of power not delegated
in the Constitution.
In your - answer you say to us —tt you claim
that men may, if they choose, embarrass those
whose duty it is to combat a giant rebellion and
then be dealt with in terms as if there were no
rebellion," You will find yourself in fault if you
will search our communication to you, for any
such idea. The undersigned believe that the
Constitution and laws of the lend, properly ad
ministered, fund& =Lee Power to pat down as
insurrection without the assumption of powers
not granted. And if existing legislation be in—
adequate, it is the duty of Congress to consider
what further legislation is necessary, and to
make suitable provision by lan.
You claim that the military arrests made by
your Administration, are merely preventive-reme—
dies as "injunctions to stay injury, or proceedings
to keep the peace, and not for punishment." The
ond nav preventive remedies alluded to are au•
thorized by established law, but the preventive
proceedings you institute have their authority
merely in the will of the Executive or that of offi
cers subordinate to his authority. And in this
proceeding a dieere4l9l4 00011411 49 be exercised as
to whether the prisoner shall be allowed a trial,
or even be permitted to know the nature of the
complaint alleged against hint, or the name of
his accuser. If the proceedings be merely pre—
ventive, why not allow the prisoner the benefit
of a bond to keep the peace. But if no offence
has been committed, why was Mr. Vallandighatu
tried, convicted and sentenced by a court mar—
tial? And why the actual punishment by im
prisonment or banishment, without the opportu
nity of obtaining his liberty in the mode usual
in preventive remedies, and yet say it is not for
punishment ?
You still place Mr. Vallandigham's conviction
and banishment upon the ground that be had
damaged the military service by discouraging
enlistments and encouraging desertions, &c., and
yet you have not even pretended to controvert
our position that he was not charged with, tried
or convicted for any Duch offence before the
court-martial.
A. LINCOLN
In answer to our position that Mr. Vallandig
him was entitled to a trial in the civil tribunals,
by virtue of the late acts of Congress, you say :
fl I certainly do not know that Mr. Vallandigham
has specifically, and by direct language, advised
against enlistments, and in favor of desertions and
resistance to drafting," Ste , and yet, in a subse
quent part of your answer, after speaking of
eerie - in disturbances which are alleged to iieNe
occurred in resistance of the arrest of deserters,
and of the enrollment preparatory to the draft,
and which you attribute mainly to the course
Mr. Vallandigham has pursued, you say that he
has made speeches against the war in the midst
of resistance to it ; that "he has never been
known, in any instance, to counsel against such
resistance," and that "it is next to impossible to
repel the inference that he has counseled directly in
favor of it." Permit us to say that your infor
mation is most grievously at fault. The under-
Ogned have been in the habit of hearing Mr.
laudigham speak before popular assemblages,
riotthey appeal with confidence to every truthful
_
who has ever head him, for the accuracy
- iihe declaration that he has never made a
each before the people of Ohio, in which he
has not counseled submission and obedience to
the laws and the Constitution, and advised the
peaceful remedies of the judicial tribunals, and
of the ballot-box for the redress of grievances,
and for the evils which allot our bleeding and
suffering country. And, were it not foreign to
the purposes of this communication, we would
undertake to establish, to the satisfaction of any;
candid person, that the disturbances among the
people, to which you allude, in opposition to the
arrest of deserters and the draft, have been oc
casioned mainly by the measures, policy, and
conduct of your Administration, and the course
of its political friends. But if the circumstantial
evidence exists, to which you allude, which
makes " it next to impossible to repel the infer
ence, that Mr. Vallandigham has counseled in
favor " of this resistance, and that the same has
been mainly attributable to his conduct, why was
he pot turned over to the civil authorities to be
tried under the late ants of Congress? If there
e any foundation in fact for your statements
. : I .plioating him in resistance to the constituted
authorities, ho is liable to such prosecution.
And we now demand, as a were act of jeetiee to
him, an investigation of this matter, before a
jury of his country; and respectfully insist that
fairness requires either that you retract these
charges which you make againathim, or thatyou
revoke your order of banishment and allow him
the opportunity of an investigation before an
impartial jury.
The Committee do not deem it necessary to
repel at length the imputation, that the attitude
of themselves or of the Democratic party in Ohio
"encourages desertions, resistsuoe to the draft,
and the like." Suggestions of that kind are not
unusual weapons in our ()raillery political con
tests. They rise readily in tip minds of politi
cians, heated with the excitement of partisan
strife. During the two years iii which the Debit,-
outdo party of Ohio has been constrained to op
pose the policy of the Administration, and to
stand up in defence of the Constitution and of
personal rights, this charge has been repeatedly
made. It has fallen harmless, however, at the
feet of those whom it was intended to injure.
The Committee believe it will do so again. If
it were proper to do so in this paper, they might
suggest that the measures of the Administration,
and he changes of policy in the probeentiett of
the war, have been the fruitful sources of die-'
couraging enlistments, and inducing desertions,
and furnish a reason - for the undeniable fact,
that the first call for volunteers wee answered by
very many mere than ware demanded, and that
the next call for soldiers will probably be re
sponded to by drafted men alone. The observa
tion of the President in this connection, that
neither the Convention in its resolutions, nor the
committee in its emninunication, intimate that
they "are conscious of an existing rebellion
beihg in progress with the avowed object of de
stroying the Union," needs, perhaps, no reply.
The Democratic party of Ohio has felt so keenly
the condition of the country, and been so stricken
to the heart by the misfortunes and sorrows
which have befallen it, that they hardly deemed
it necessary by solemn resolution, when their
very State exhibited everywhere the sad eviden
ces of war, to remind the President that they
'were aware of its existence.
In the conclusion of your communication, you
propose that, if a majority of the committee shall
affix their signatures to a duplicate copy of it,
which you have furnished, they shall stand com
mitted to three propositions therein at length set
forth, that he will publish the names thus signed,
and that this publication shall operate as a revo
cation of the order of banishment. The commit
tee cannot refrain from the expression of their
surprise that the President should make the fete
of Mr. Vallandigbam depend upon the opinion
of this committee upon these propositions. If the
arrest and banishment were legal, and were de
served, if the President exercised a power clearly
delegated, under circumstances which warranted
its exercise, the order ought not to be revoked,
merely because the committee bold or express
opinions swoordant with those of the President.
If the arrest and banishinent were not legal, or
were not deserved by Mr. Vallandigbam, then
surely he is entitled to an immediate and uncon
ditional discharge.
The peo p le of Ohio were not so 'deeply moved
by the action of the President, merely because
they were concerned for the personal safety or
convenience of Mr. Vallandigham, brit beelines
they saw in his arrest and banishment an attack
upon their own personal rights ; and they attach
value to his discharge chiefly as it will indicate
an abandonment of the claim to the power of ouch
arrest and banishment. However just the un
dersigned might regard the principles contsined
in the several propositions submitted by the
President, or how much soever they might under
other circumstances, feel inclined to indorse the
sentiments contained therein, yet they assure him
that they have not been authorized to enter into
any bargains, terms, contracts, or conditions with
the President of the United States to procure the
release of Mr. Vallandigham. The opinions of
the undersigned touching the questions' involved
in these proposition', are weLlknown, have been
many times publicly expressed, and are suffi
ciently manifested in the resolutions of the Con
vention which they represent, end they cannot
suppose that the President expeota that they will
seek the discharge of Mr. Vallandigham by a
pledge, implying not only_ an imputation upon
their owneinewity and thot as eitione of the