Gallipolis journal. [volume] (Gallipolis, Ohio) 1837-1919, 1864-02-11
H The following letter from

n The following letter from
Judge Nash, in review of Senator
Summers late speeches in Congress,
though ct greater length than we
would have preferred, will prove OF
sufficient interest to our readers to
Justify us in its publication. The
ground taken by the Judgeis certain
ly tenable, and we commend it to
the attention of all who feel an in
terest in the future welfare of the
Republic:
GALLIPoIIs o Dec. % 1863
HON. CHAS. SUMNER.-Sr: 1
received your two speeches, and have
read them with with much interes!.
All YOU say as to the origin OF this
cursed rebellion and its relation to
slavery, is true.
But I am surprised at your views
in relation to the power of the gov
eminent over slavery; and more yet,
at your citation of the example OF
Marius. In antiquity there was no
law of nations, as we understand those
terms. The laws of war, were then
simply the laws offorce, carried out by
the mere will of the power or person
welding the same. The law of ma
tions, is ofmodern origin, growing up
under the influence Of christianity
over the conduct and intercourse of
nations; it is christianity, modifying
the barbarism of antiquity, by which
"a public enemy, when captured, or
conquered, became slave; the slave
of the captor. In the middle age,
prisoners of war we're allowed to be
redeemed for sum OF money, and
now they are subject to be exchang-
ed according to the modern usages of
war. This is the rule by which our
nation is governed, while carrying on
this war against the rebellion. Itwas
unnecessary for you to 60 so far back
in history, for an example, stringent
enough for rebels. You can find mod
ern treatises, which lay down the doc
trine, that rebels have no rights, that
they forfeited all their right to life,
liberty, and property, and that they
are not entitled to the protection of
the laws, relating to prisoners of war.
But we know that this is not the law,
as now settled by intelligent publi-
cists of our day. 1t is now held, that
rebels taken in arms, are entitled to
the same treatment as other prison
ers of war; they can neither be made
slaves, nor robbed or hung. Did one
ever hear in modern times, Of gen.
eral massacre of rebels taken in arms?
If it has ever been practised, it has
been regarded with execration by all
christian nations. The proceedings
of Russia in Poland, are condemned
by the moral sentiment of christian
Europe.
But there is one consideration Who'll
ly overlooked by many in the discus
sion of this question. The govern
ment of the United States is organi-
zed under written constitution, de-
priving Congress and the Executive Of
powers, which are literally exercised
by other governments not so restrict
cd. We cannot do what England and
France would have clear right to do
their powers not being bound down
and restricted by written charter ol
constitution. With them, the law ma
king power is supreme; with us it i:
the constitution. Yet in England
the Queen cannot deprive traitor O.
his life, liberty, or property, excep
upon conviction in court of jnstice
Parliment may accomplish the pur
pose by an act Of pains and penalties,
which our Congress is prohibited
from passing.
The Constitution declares that nc
person shall be deprived of life, hber
ty, or property, save by due course
of law; and even traitor cannot b'
convicted of treason, unless the over
act of treason is proved by the test
mony of two witnesses. These pro
visions were inserted in the Constitu
ton for the protection of the persol
accused of this high crime, and n
one can deprive him of itsprotection
How then under the Constitution, ar
we to deprive a person eveu of hi
property in slaves, until after trial an
conviction? Has Congress, or tn
President, or any person acting unde
their authority, power to seize th
property Of q rebel, or traitor an
appropriate it to the benefit of tn
United States without trial and cor
viction2 If SO, then Congress ca
pass what in England, is called bi
of pains and penalties, by which
person was without trial, convicted
treason, and forfeiture of propert
declared. But it is admitted ths
Congress can pass no such act; an
vet it seems to be implied BY SOM