the arrest of Mr. Vallandigham and the duty of the court to grant the writ applied for. The basis of the whole argument rests on the assumption that Mr. Vallandigham not being in the military or naval service of the Government, and not therefore subject to the Rules and Articles of War, was not liable to arrest under or by military power. And the various provisions of the Constitution intended to guard the citizen against unlawful arrests and imprisonments have been cited and urged upon the attention of the court as having a direct bearing on the point. It is hardly necessary to quote these excellent guaranties of the rights and liberties of an American citizen as they are familiar to every reader of the Constitution. And it may be conceded that if by a just construction of the constitutional powers of the Government in the solemn emergency now existing they are applicable to and must control the question of the legality of the arrest of the petitioner it cannot be sustained for the obvious reason that no warrant was issued "upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation,? as is required in ordinary arrests for alleged crimes. But are there not other considerations of a controlling character applicable to the question? Is not the court imperatively bound to regard the present state of the country and in the light which it throws upon the subject to decide upon the expediency of interfering with the exercise of the military power as invoked in the pending application? The court cannot shut its eyes to the grave fact that war exists, involving the most imminent public danger and threatening the subversion and destruction of the Constitution itself. In my judgment when the life of the Republic is imperiled he mistakes his duty and obligation as a patriot who is not willing to concede to the Constitution such a capacity of adaptation to circumstances as may be necessary to meet a great emergency and save the nation from hopeless ruin. Self-preservation is a paramount law which a nation as well as an individual may find it necessary to invoke. Nothing is hazarded in saying that the great and far-seeing men who framed the Constitution of the United States supposed they were laying the foundation of our National Government on an immovable basis. They did not contemplate the existence of the state of things with which the nation is noe unhappily confronted, the heavy pressure of which is felt by every true patriot. They did not recognize the right of secession by one State, or any number of States, for the obvious reason that it would have been in direct conflict with the purpose in view in the adoption of the Constitution, and an incorporation of an element in the frame of the Government which would inevitably result in its destruction. In their glowing visions of futurity there was no foreshadowing of a period when the people of a large geographical themselves in rebellion against a government under whose mild and benignant sway there was so much of hope and promise for the coming ages. We need not be surprised, therefore, that in the organic law which they gave us they made no specific provision for such a lamentable occurrence. They did, however, distinctly contemplate the possibility of foreign war and vested in Congress the power to declare its existence and "to raise and support armies" and "provide and maintain a navy. " They also made provision for the suppression of insurrection and rebellion. They were aware that the grant of these powers implied all other powers necessary to give them full effect. They also declared that the President of the United States 'shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy and of the militia of the several States when called into actual service," and they placed upon him the