in order, if possible, to make you a more favorable answer that I finally find myself able to do.

It is a vital point with us to not have a special stipulation with the governor of any one state, because it would breed trouble in many, if not all other states; and my idea was, when I wrote you, as it still is, to get a point of time to which we could wait, on the reason that we were not ready ourselves to proceed, and which might enable you to raise the quota of your state, in whole, or in large part, without the draft. The points of time you fix are much further off than I had hoped. We might have got along in the way I have indicated for twenty, or possibly thirty days. As it stands, the best I can say is that every volunteer you will present us within thirty days from the date, fit and ready to be mustered into the United States service, on the usual terms, shall be pro tanto, an abatement of your quota of the draft. That quota I can now state at eight thousand, seven hundred and eighty-three (8,783). No draft from New Jersey, other than for the above quota, will be made before an additional draft, common to all the states, shall be required; and I may add, that if we get well through with this draft, I entertain a strong hope that any further one may never be needed. This expression of hope, however, must not be construed into a promise.

As to conducting the draft by townships, I find it would require such a waste of labor already done, and such an additional amount of it, and such a loss of time as to make it, I fear, inadvisable.

P. S. Since writing the above, getting additional

information, I am enabled to say that the draft may be made in sub-districts, as the enrollment has been made, or is now in process of making. This will amount practically to drafting by townships, as the enrollment sub-districts are generally about the extent of townships. Your obedient servant,

A. LINCOLN.

TO MAJOR-GENERAL BURNSIDE, CINCINNATI, O.

War Department, Washington, July 27, 1863. Let me explain. In General Grant's first dispatch after the fall of Vicksburg, he said, among other things, he would send the ninth corps to you.

Thinking it would be pleasant news to you, I asked the Secretary of War to telegraph you the news. For some reasons never mentioned to us by General Grant, they have not been sent, though we have seen outside intimations, that they took part in the expedition against Jackson.

General Grant is a copious worker and fighter, but a very meager writer or telegrapher. No doubt he changed his purpose in regard to the ninth corps for some sufficient reason, but has forgotten to notify us of it. A. LINCOLN.

TO MAJOR-GENERAL HALLECK.

Executive Mansion, July 29, 1863. Seeing General Meade's dispatch of yesterday to yourself, causes me to fear that he supposes the government here is demanding of him to bring on a general engagement with Lee as soon as possible. I am claiming no such thing of him.

In fact, my judg

ment is against it, which judgment, of course, I will yield if yours and his are the contrary. If he could not safely engage Lee at Williamsport, it seems absured to suppose he can safely engage him now, when he has scarcely more than two-thirds of the force he had at Williamsport, while, it must be that Lee has been re-inforced. True, I desired General Meade to pursue Lee across the Potomac, hoping, as it proved true, that he would thereby clear the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, and get some advantage by harassing him on his retreat. These being past, I am unwilling he should now get into a general engagement on the impression that we here are pressing him, and I shall be glad for you to so inform him, unless your own judgment is against it. Yours, truly,

A. LINCOLN.

REPLY TO LETTER FROM OHIO DEMOCRATS.

July 29, 1863.

The resolution of the Ohio Democratic State Convention, which you present me, together with your introductory and closing remarks, being in position and argument mainly the same as the resolutions of the Democratic meeting at Albany, N. Y., I refer you to my response to the later as meeting most of the points in the former. This response you evidently used in preparing you remarks, and I desire no more than that it be used with accuracy. In a single reading of your remarks, I only discovered one inaccuracy in 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

Constitution is different in time of insurrection or invasion from what it is in the 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 Constitution is different in its application in cases of rebellion 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 case which may not be done in the other.

I dislike to waste a word on a merely personal point, but I must respectfully assure you that you will find yourselves at fault should you ever seek for evidence 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 Congress to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, and yet the other guarantees of personal liberty would remain unchanged." Doubtless if this clause of the Constitution, improperly called, as I think, a limitation upon the power of Congress, were expunged, the other guarantees would remain the same; but the question is, not how those guarantees would stand with that clause out of the Constitution, but how they stand with that clause remaining in it, in case of rebellion or invasion, involving the public safety. If the liberty could be indulged in expunging that clause, letter and spirit, I really think the constitutional argument would be with you. My general view on this question was stated in the

I

Albany response, and hence I do not state it now. only add that, as 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 benefits of the writ of habeas corpus itself, may be suspended, when, in case of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

You ask, in substance, whether I really claim that I may override all the guaranteed rights of individuals, on the plea of conserving the public safety-when I may choose to say the public safety requires it. This question, divested of the phraseology calculated to represent me as struggling for an arbitrary personal prerogative, is either simply a question who shall decide, or an affirmation that nobody shall decide, what the public safety does require in cases 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 invasion comes, the decision is to be made, from time to time, and I think the man whom, for the time, the people have under the Constitution, 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 probably justify him; if he abuses it, he is in their hands, to be dealt with by all the modes they have reserved