ndicate their opinion that military
arrests may be constitutional in localities where rebellion actually
exists, but that such arrests are unconstitutional in localities where
rebellion or insurrection does not actually exist. They insist that such
arrests shall not be made "outside of the lines of necessary military
occupation and the scenes of insurrection." Inasmuch, 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 constitutional 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 interference 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 invasion. Take the particular
case mentioned by the meeting. It is asserted in substance that Mr.
Vallandigham 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 orders of the
general." Now, if there be no mistake about this, if this assertion is the
truth, and the whole truth, if there were 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 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 military, and thus gave the militar