General Joseph E. Johnston,
General John B. Magruder, General William B. Preston, General 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 had 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 discharged 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 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 th