WASHINGTON, July 1, 1863.

To His Excellency the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:

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 possible 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 to the plain language of the Constitution. The inherent provisions of the Constitution remaining the same in time of insurrection 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 letter. Because some things may be done by the terms of the Constitution at the time of invasion or insurrection which would not be required by the occasion in time of peace, you assume that anything whatever, even though not expressed by the Constitution, may be done on the occasion of insurrection or invasion which the President 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 protection of the life, liberty, and property of the citizen may be in like manner suspended.

The provision relating to the writ of habeas corpus being contained in the first part of the Constitution, the purpose of which is to define the powers delegated to Congress, has no connection in language with the declaration of rights as guarantees of personal liberty contained in the additional and amendatory articles, and inasmuch as the provision relating to the habeas corpus expressly provides for its suspension and the other provisions alluded to do not provide for any such thing the legal conclusion is that the suspension of the latter is unauthorized. The writ of habeas corpus is merely intended to furnish a summary remedy 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 pretense of free government. It is true Mr. Vallandigham applied 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 his other rights as an American citizen. Your assumption of the right to suspend all the constitutional guarantees of 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 alarming to all persons desirous of preserving free government in this country.

The inequity of the undersigned whether "you hold the rights of every man throughout this vast country in time of invasion or insurrection are subject to be annulled whenever you may say that you consider the public safety requires it?" was a plain question, undisguised by circumlocution, and intended simply to elicit information. Your affirmative answer to this question throws a shade upon the fondest anticipations of the framers of the Constitution, who flattered themselves that they had provided safeguards against the dangers which have ever beset and overthrown free government in other ages and counties. Your answer is not to be disguised by the phraseology that the question "is simply a question who shall decide, or an affirmation that nobody shall decide, what the public safety does require in case