E >e LS X THE TRIBUNE WAR No. 5. TRACTS, PRESIDENT LINCOLN ON Vallandigham and "Arbitrary Arrests," A great " Democratic meeting" was held at Albany on the 16th ult. to denounce the arrest of Vallandigham and demand his restoration to liberty. Hon. Erastus Corning, M. C., pre- sided; Mayor Eli Perry was first Vice-Presi- dent, &c., &c. This meeting having unani- mously Ptiolved, That we demand that the Administration shall be true to the Constitution; shall recoguize nd maintain the rights of the Sate* aud the liberties of the citizen; shall everywhere, outside of the line* of necessary military occu- pation and tue scenes of insurrection, exert all its powers to maintain the supremacy of the civil over military Itw. Rcfjlvd. That, in view of these principles, we denounce the recent assumption of a military commander to seize and Uy a ci izen of Ohio. Clement L. Vallandigbam, for no other reiton than words addressed to a public meeting, in cri ici.m of the coune of the Administration, aud in condemnation of the military orders of that General. Retolved, That this assumption of power by a military tri- bunal, if successfully asserted, not only abrogates th right of the people to aemble and discuss the aflaus of Govern- ment, the libeity of speech and of the piess, the right of trial by J u O'i th e -law of evidence, and the privilege of habcat corjtui, but it strikes a fa'al blow at the supremacy of law, and toe authority of the state arid Federal Constitutions, &c., &c., closed as follows: Reiolved. That the President, VIce-Presidents. and Secre- tary of this meeting be requested to transmit a copy of these resolutions to hi* Excellency the President of the United States, with the asvurance of this meeting ot their heurty aud earnefct desir* to support the Government in every constitu- tional and lawful measure to suppress the eximag Rebellion. The officers obeyed this request, in a note which reads as follows: ALBANY, May 19, 1863. To hit Excellency the Pretident of the United States : The undersigned, officers of a public meeting held at the City of Albany on the lo'ih day of May inetant, herewith trans- ait your Excellency a copy of the resolutions adopted at the said meeting, and respectfully request your earnest considera- tion of ttieoi. They deem it proper on their personal respon- sibility to state that (he meeting was one of the moat respect- able an to numbers anil character, and one of the moat earnest in the suppoit of the Union, ever held in this city. Yours, with great resard, ERA&TU3 CORNING, Presidsnt, tc., &.C. To all which the following answer has been returned by the President: MR. LINCOLN'S REPLY. EXKCUTIVB MANSION. WASHINGTON, June 12, 1863* Hen. ERASTTJB CORNING and other*: GENTLEMEN: Your letter of May 19, inclosing the resolutions of a public meeting held at Albany, N. Y., on the 16th of the same month, was received several days ago. The resolutions, as I understand them, are resolv- able into two propositions first, the expression of a purpose to sustain the cause of the Union, to se- cure peace through victory, and to support the Ad- ministration in every constitutional and lawful measure to suppress the Rebellion ; and eecondly, a declaration of censure upon the Administration for supposed unconstitutional action, such as the making of military arrests. And, from the two propositions, a third is deduced, which is that the gentlemen com- posing the meeting are resolved on doing their part to maintaiu our common government and country, deepite the folly or wickedness, as they may con- ceive, of any Administration. This position is emi- nently patriotic, and as such I tbuiik the meeting and congratulate the nation for it. My own pur- pose is the same; so that the meeting and myself have a common object, and can have no difference, except in the choice of means or measures ior effect- ing that object. And here I ought to close this paper, and would close it, it there were no apprehension that more- in- jurious consequences than any merely pereonal to myself might follow the censures systematically cast npon me for doing what, in my view of duty. I could not forbear. TLe resolutions promise to sup- port me in every constitutional and lawful measure to supprets the Rebellion; and I have not know- ingly employed, nor shall knowingly employ, any other. But the meeting, by their resoluiioue, assert and argue that certain military arrests, and pro- ceedings following them, for which I am ultimately responsible, are unconstitutional. I think they are not. The resolutions quote from the Constitution the definition of treason, and also the limiting safe- guards and guarantees therein provided for the citi- zen on trials for treason, aud on his being held to answer lor capital or otherwise infamous ci imes, and, in criminal prosecutions, his right to a speedy and public trial by tm impartial jury. Ttiey pro- ceed to resolve " that these safeguards of the rights of the citizen against the pretensions of arbitrary power were intended more especially for his protec- tion in times of civil commotion." And, appa- rently to demonstrate the proposition, the reso- lutions proceed: "They were secured substan- tially to the English people after years of pro- tracted civil war, and were adopted into our Con- stitution at the close of the Revolution." Would not the demonetration have been better if it could have been truly said that these safeguards hud been adopted and applied during the civil wars and during our Revolution, instead of after the one and at the close of the other? I, too, am devcitdly for them after civil war. and before civil war, and at all times, " except when, in cases of rebellion or in- vasion, the public safety may require " their suspen- sion. The resolutions proceed to tell us that these eafeguards "have stood the test of seventy-six years of trial, under our republican system, under circumstances which show that, whj let hey constitute the foundation of all free government, they are the elements of the enduring stability of 4Jhe Republic." No one. defies that they uu /P. so ttoad tbe\test up to the beginning cf the present Rehellxca, if. we except a certain occurrence at New-Orleans; nor does any one question that they will stand the same test much longer after the Rebellion closes. But these provis- ions of the Constitution have no application to the caee we have in hand, because the arrests com- plained of were not made for treason that is, not for the treason denned in the Constitution, and upon conviction of which the punishment is death nor yet were they made to hold persons to answer for any capital or otherwise infamous crimes; nor were the proceedings following, in any constitutional or legal sense, "criminal prosecutions." The ar- rests were made on totally different grounds, and the proceedings following accorded with the grounds of the arrests. Let UB consider the real caee with which we are dealing, and apply to it the parts of the Con- stitution plainly made for such cases. Prior to my installation here, it had been incul- cated that any State had a lawful right to secede from the national Union, and that it would be expe- dient M> exercise the right whenever the devotees of the doctrine should iail to elect a President to their own liking. I was elected contrary to their liking; mid, accordingly, BO far as it was legally possible, they had taken seven States out of the Union, had seized many of the United States forts, and had fired upon the United States flag, all before I was inaugurated, and, of course, before I bad done any official act whatever. Tbe Rebellion thus began soon ran into the present Civil War; and, in certain respects, it began on very unequal terms be- tween the parties. Tbe insurgen s had been pre- paring for it more than thirty years, while the Gov- ernment had taken no steps 10 resist them. The former had carefully considered all the means which could be turned to their account. It undoubtedly was a well- pondered reliance with them that, in their own unrestricted efforts to destroy Union, Con- stitution, and law, all together, the Government would, in great degree, be restrained by the same Constitution and law from arresting tbeir progress. Their sympathizers pervaded all departments of the Government and nearly all communities of the peo- ple. From this material, under cover of " liberty of speech," " liberty of the press," and "habeas cor- pus," they hoped to keep on foot among us a most efficient corps of spies, informers, suppliers, and aiders and abettors of tbeir cans* in a thousand ways. They knew that in times such as they were inaugu- rating, by the Constitution i'-self, the "habeas sorpus" might be suspended; but they also tnew they had friends who would make a question as to w ho was to suspend it; meanwnile, iheir spies and others might remain at large to help on tlieir cause. Or, if, as has happened, the Executive should suspend the writ, without ruinous waste of time, instances of arresting innocent persona . might occur, as are always likely to occur in sucfc cases ; and then a clamor could be raised in regard to this, -which might be, at least, of some service to the insurgent cause. It needed no very keen per- ception to discover this part of the enemy's pro- gramme, BO soon as, by open hostilities, their ma- chinery was fairly put in motion. Yet, thoroughly imbued with a reverence for the guaranteed rights of individuals, I was elow to adopt the strong measures which by degrees I have been forced to regard as being within the exceptions of the Consti- tution, and as indispensable to the public safety. Nothing is better known to history than that courts of justice are utterly incompetent to such cases, civil courts are organized chiefly for trials of individuals, or, at most, a few individuals acting in concert; and this in quiet times, and on charges of crimes well defined in the law. Even in times of peace, bands of horse-thieves and robbers frequently grow too numerous and powerful for the ordinary courts of justice. But what comparison, in num- bers, have such bands ever borne to the insurgent sympathizers even in many of the loyal States ? Again: a jary too frequently has at least one mem- ber more ready to hang the panel than to hang the traitor. And yet, again, he who dissuades one man from volunteering, or induces one soldier to desert, weakens thjs Union cause as much as he who kills a Union soldier in battle. Yet this dis- suasion or inducement may be so conducted as to be no defined crime of which any civil court would take cognizance. Ours is a case of rebellion BO called by the reso- lutions before me in fact, a clear, flagrant, and gigantic case of rebellion; and the provision of the Constitution that "the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it," is the provision which specially ap- plies to our present case. This provision plainly at- tests the understanding of those who made the Consti- tution, that ordinary courts of justice are inadequate to "cases of rebellion" attests their purpose that, in such cases, men may be held in custody whom the courts, acting on ordinary rules, would discharge. Habeas corpus does not discharge men who are proved to be guilty of defined crime; and its suspen- sion is allowed by the Contstitution on purpose that men may be arrested and held who cannot be proved to be guilty of defined crime, " when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it." This is precisely our present case a case of rebellion, wherein the public safety does require the suspension. Indeed, arrests by process of courts, and arrests in caaes of rebellion, do not proceed al- together upon the same basis. The former is directed at the small per centage of ordinarv and continuous perpetration of crime; while the latter is directed at sudden and extensive uprisings against the Govern- ment, which at most, will succeed or fail in no great length of time. In the latter case, arrests are made, not so much for what has been done, at> for what prob- ably would be done. The latter ia more for the preventive and less for the vindictive than the former. In such cases, the purposes of men are much more easily understood than in cases of ordinary crime. The man who stands by and says nothing when the peril of his Government is discussed, can- not be misunderstood. If not hindered, he is sure to help the enemy; much more, if he talks ambiguous- ly talks for his country with "buts" and "ifs" and " ands." Of how little value the constitutional provisions I have quoted -will be rendered, if arrests eball never be made until defined crimes shall have been committed, may be illustrated by a few notable examples. Gep. John C. Breckiuridge, Gen. Robert E. Lee, Gen. Joseph E. Johnston, Gen. John B. Magruder, Gen. William B. Preston, Gen. Simon B. Buckner, and Commodore Franklin Buchanan, now occupying the very highest places in the Rebel war service, were all within the power of the Government since the Rebellion began, and were nearly as well known to be traitors then as now. Unquestionably if we had seized and held them, the insurgent cause would be much weaker. But no one of them had then committed any crime defined in the law. Every one of them, if arrested, would have been dis- charged on habeas corpus were the writ allowed to operate. In view of these and similar cases, I think the time not unlikely to come when I shall be blamed for having made too few arrests rather than too many. By the third resolution, the meeting indicate their opinion that military arrests may be constitutional in localities where rebellion actually exists, but that sucb arrests are unconstitutional in localities where rebellion or insurrection does not actually exist. They insist that such arrests shall not be aaade " outside of the lines of necessary military occupation, and the scenes of insurrection." Inas- much, however, as the Constitution itself makes no such distinction, I am unable to believe that there is any such constitutional distinction. I concede that the class of arrests complained of can be constitu- tional only when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require them; and I insist that in such cases they are constitutional wherever the public safety does require them; as well in places to which they may prevent the Rebellion extending as in those where it may be already prevailing; as well where they may restrain mischievous interfer- ence with the raising and supplying of armies to suppress the Rebellion, as where the Rebellion may actually be; as well where they may restrain the enticing men out of the army, as where they would prevent mutiny in the army ; equally constitutional at all places where they will conduce to the public safety, as against the dangers of rebellion or in- vasion. Take the particular case mentioned by the meeting. It is asserted, in substance, that Mr. Val- landigham was, by a military commander, seized and tried " for no other reason than words ad- dressed to a public meeting, in criticism of the course of the Administration, and in condemnation of the Military orders of the General." Now, if there be no mistake about this; if this assertion is the truth and the whole truth ; if there was no other reason for the arrest, then I concede that the arrest was wrong. But the arrest, as 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 Ad- ministration, or the personal interests of the Com- manding 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 bands upon him. If Mr. Vallan- digham was not damaging the military power of the country, then his arreat was made on mistake of fact, which I would be glad to correct on reasonably satisfactory evidence. I undei stand the meeting, whose resolutions I am considering, to be in favor of suppressing the Re- bellion by military force by armies. Long experience has shown that armies cannot be maintained unless desertions shall be punished by the sevtre penalty of death. The case requires, and the law and the Constitution sanction, this punish- ment. Must I shoot a simple-minded soldier boy who deserts, while I must not touch a hair of a wily agitator who induces him to desert? This is none the lees injurious when effected by getting a father, or brother, or friend, into a public meeting, and there working upon his feelings till be is persuaded to write the soldier boy that he is fighting in a bad cause, for a wicked Administration of a contempti- ble Government, too weak to arrest and punish him if he shall desert. I think that in such a case to silence the agitator and save the boy is not only constitutional, but withal a great mercy. If I be wrong on this question of constitutional power, my error lies in believing that certain pro- ceedings are constitutional when, in cases of rebel- lion or invasion, the public safety requires them, which would not be constitutional when, in the ab- sence of rebellion or invasion, the public safety does not require them: in other words, that the Con- stitution is not, in its application, in all respects the same, in cases of rebellion or invasion involving the public safety, as it is in time of profound peace and public security. The Constitution itself makes the distinction ; and 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 medicine for a sick man, be- cause it can be shown not to be good food for a well one. Nor am I able to appreciate the danger appre- hended by tbe meeting that the American people will, by means of military arrests during the Re- bellion, lose the right of Public Discussion, the Liberty of Speech and the Press, the Law of Evi- dence, Trial by Jury, and Habeas Corpus, through- out 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 feed- ing upon them during the remainder of his health- ful life. In giving the resolutions that earnest considera- tion which you request of me, I cannot overlook the fact that the meeting speak as " Democrats." Nor can I, with full respect for their known intelligence, and the fairly presumed deliberation with which they prepared their resolutions, be permitted to suppose that this occurred by accident, or in any way other tf>an that they preferred to designate themselves " Democrats" rather than " American citizens." In this time of national peril, I would have preferred to meet you upon a level one step higher than any party platform; because I am sure that, from such more elevated position, we could do better battle for the country we all love than we possibly can from those lower ones where, from the force of habit, the prejudices of the past, and selfish hopes of the fu- ture, we are sure to expend much of our ingenuity and strength in finding fault with, and aiming blows at each other. But, since you have denied me this, I will yet be thankful, for the country's sake, that not all Democrats have done so. He on whose dis- cretionary judgment Mr. Vallandigham was arrested and tried is a Democrat, having no old party affinity with me; and the judge who rejected the constitu- tional view expressed in these resolutions, by re- fuging to discharge Mr. Vallandigham on habeas corpus, is a Democrat of better days than these, hav- ing received his judicial mantle at the hands of President Jackson. And still more, of all those Democrats who are nobly exposing their lives and shedding their blood on the battle-field, I have learned that many approve the course taken with Mr. Vallandigham, while I have not heard of a sin- gle one condemning it. I cannot assert tbat there are none such. And the name of President Jackson recalls an instance of pertinent history: After the battle of New-Orleans, and while the fact tbat the treaty of peace had been concluded was well known in the city, but before official knowledge of it had arrived, Gen. Jackson still maintained martial or military law. Now, that it could be taid the war was over, the clamor against martial law, which had existed from the first, grew more furious. Among other things, a Mr.Louiallier published a denunciatory newspaper article. Gen. Jackson arrested him. A lawyer by the name of Morel procured the United States Judge Hall to issue a writ of habeas corpus " to relieve Mr. Louiallier. Gen. Jackson arrested both the lawyer and the judge. A Mr. Hol'ander ventured to say of some part of the matter that " it was a dirty trick." Gen. Jackson arrested him. When the officer undertook to serve the writ of habeas corpup, Gen. Jackson took it from him, and eent him away with a copy. Holding the judge in custody a few days, the General sent him beyond the limits of his encampment, and eet him at liberty, > with an order to remain till the ratification of peace should be regularly announced, or until the British should have left the Southern coast. A day or two more elapsed, the ratification of a treaty of peace was regularly announced, and the judge and others were fully liberated. A few days more, and the judge called Gen. Jackson into court and fined him $1,000 for having arrested him and the others named. The General paid the fine, and there the matter rested for nearly thirty years, when Congress re- funded principal and interest. The late Senator Douglas, then in the House of Eepresentatives, took a leading part in the debates, iu which the consti- tutional question was much discussed. I am not prepared to eay whom the journals would show to have voted for the measure. It may be remarked: First, that we had the same Constitution then as now; secondly, that we then had a case of invasion, and now we have a case of rebellion; and, thirdly, that the permanent right of the People to Public Discussion, the Liberty of Speech and of the Press, the Trial by Jury, the Lw of Evidence, and the Habeas Corpus, suffered no detriment whatever by that conduct of Gen. Jack- son, or its subsequent approval by the American Congress. Aud yet, let me say tbat, in my own discretion, I do not know whether I would have ordered the arrest of Mr. Vallandigham. While I cannot shift the responsibility from myself, I hold that, as a general rule, the commander iu the field ia the better judge of the necessity in any particular case. Of course, I must practice a general directory and revisory power in the matter. One of the resolutions expresses the opinion of the meeting that arbitrary arrests will have the effect to divide and distract those who should be united in suppressing the Rebellion, and I am speci- fically called on to discharge Mr. Vallandigham. I regard this as, at least, a fair appeal to me on the expediency of exercising a Constitutional power which I think exists. In response to such appeal, I have to say, it gave me pain when I learned that Mr. Vallandigbam had been arrested that is, I was pained that there should have seemed to be a neces- sity for arresting him and tbat it will afford me great pleasure to discharge him eo soon as I can, by any means, believe the public safety will not suffer by it. I further say that, as the war progresses, it appears to me, opinion and action, which were in great confusion at first, tske shape and fall into more regular channels, so that the necessity for strong dealing with them gradually decreases. I have every reason to desire that it should cease altogether ; and far from the least is my regard for the opinions and wishes of those who, like the meeting at Albany, declare their purpose to sustain the Government in every Constitutional and lawful measure to suppress the Rebellion. Still, I must coutinue to do so much as may seem to be required by the public safety,