Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1819-02-23

e,s were pni 10 death. The next mode
OF treating them, was 10 reduce them 10
slavery. then MAS established the system
of ransom; and. finally, the present mode
oil eAc.ianse--see Vat,el, b. ), ch. q, d.
lSi, 2, 3,.in relation 10 Tins suhieci.
During the existence of each OF these
inuues OF treatment. ircm The mos, severe
down o lie nosi ienieni, HE whole pow
er ana aulhoriiS upon The subject, in the
nature of ,hinss, belonged to the com
niand,mg general. When, then, case
occ,is Ike the present, in which The orr
gnial treatment OF priseuersis tesiiiiable
the satse power must have authority over
II. This idea is strongly supported .by
the Goclrlnc al realization, and nafticu-
lafli by the mode OF us execution Tor
II lie enemy causes prisoners 10 be pu,
Ia death, the priuce whose people are thus
treaiad. or his general, has ii. hi 10 re-
iuse hie 10 SONG Of The prisoners heanay
FAKE. Again, sir. Ii MAS luuy The p.in-
cinie. AMI Is now even cuiiemded Tor by
some, that i governor OF Il place, who
makes a desperate defence, and causes
great e,iuSiou @. blood thereby, may be
pun 10 death. BY whom! of course by
the commanding geheral Of the enemy.
One ease more, sir, and have done with
quotations upon ilis paint. When, saws
waited, b. 8, ch. s, SECTION i5l, Our safe
Is Is INCOMPATIBLE viii, tliai OF the enc
my, .hongh sulidh a, il is out oi all cues
ton, but tina, IN cool blood IA great mum
Der OF prisoners should be pu. 10 deail .
by whom II must be by HE command.
my general. This principle is precisely
recognized by The resolve Of The old CON
gress, read by The member from Keniuc
ny, Tor they resolve, expressly, that nu
only The commander in chief, but tic
commaRder OF separate army, had The
right CT retaliation. Two examples have
been reieriedio, which have been stippns-
Ell ioproye ,'lecoD,rary. One during the
qHasFwar with irance--ihe oiln during
The late war with Great Britain, in which
legislative provision was made upon The
subject. In relation 10 the FIRST, | will
observe, liza, there really VAS no actual
~a', and consequently none ofthe rights
OF war could strictly be exercised. AS
to The example during the late war with
Great Britain, the law contains Two dis
ilnct sections : the first authorizes lie
Presidcnt TO reta'Iafc on Great Britain
any violations ottiie rules OF civilized war
ami me second autIorises him 10 rrtaliaie
on british subjects for onirages commit
led by Indians iii alliance will, them
The last contains All entirely new princi-
pie, because II authorizes retaliation up-
on The soldiers Of the principal, for cru
ellIes committed by The allies. II, there
lore, has application at all To This case.
And, as II respects both The provisions.
they are subject 10 this remark, that thew
rsiaie To retaliation, Us 10 which, tho tie
President had the power, he might no,
choose 10 exercise il without The sanction
OF Congress, inasmuch as it would fall
upon The innocent exclusively. have al
ready cndcayored 10 show that i'm this
case 1t falls on the guihy only.
In regard to the court martial, gentle
men say 1t had no jurisdiction. This is
10 be correct; and have AZ
10 show, thai The power belong
ed TO the commanding general. Altho'
however, the court had no Jurisdiction TO
DECIDE the fate of lie two men, i, was moi
improper through them to get al the facts.
and though they had no Jurisdiction. il
would have beendesirablc that The gene
raj, after submitting the case to them.
should have followed the sentence which,
they pronounced, but for an uuanswar-
able reason, which, believe, has already
been urged, that The punishment which,
they pronounced in The case in which
Their sentence was not followed, was un-
known 10 The national law. and therefore
could no; properly be inflicted. have
illus, sir, shown, as think, that the DOW
er OF putting these men 10 death, belong
ed 10 Us as one OF the rights OF war. and
that 1t was iegiiinlaiely exercised by The
general and yet, sir, ac-
knowledge that feel a regre, a, their
what kind of regre, {?
Just such as would feel for the exccu
Ton OF Il uian who had been sentenced 10
deaih uDdcr the municipal law of The
country, and III whose favor, under Ger
TAIN circumstances, | might Join in pe-
iliion Tor pardon, which petition was re-
jectej. l could not, however, in The ca.
which have stated, concur in vote of
censurc against the executive officer Tor
refusing This pardon, because he has onl,
The sentence Of The law be-
cause he has carried in,o effect the pub
lie justice OF the country /; and, because
an act, Coniorma5le To law, and IN arcor-
dance with tue principles OF justice. even
1t you call II stern justice, cannot be mo-
ratiy arrong.
II Is true, sir, HAT mercy is a god Like
virtue, and that " earthly powef sbevs
llkesi 10 divine, when mercy seasons JUS
ice; but there Is poini, when even her
pleading voice should not prevail; but The
sword of justice should execuie lis office.
How long we should listen To her enirea
lies, az when we SHOULD become deaf, even
ia. them. II Is Impossible, certainly 10 say.
One thing, however, is certaln-thai,
whilst the proprlety of The inierposilion
OF mercy depends on circumstances, the
principles of justice are immuiable the
same yesterday, to-day, and forever.
Though, therefore, ! should have been
pleased IT they had been spared, yet,
wien recolIect that we have labOred in
vain 10 extend 10 the lHdi;ns the mild
precepis of religion, and TO excite in their
bosomS feelings of philanthropy when |