The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1865-11-10
| Tn. OBJECT in r-sfins Sea. Davis on


The appeals that have been made TO the Pre-
sident for Jeff Davis pardon by State conven-
tons and delegations of gentlemen and sympa-
thetic ladies spring from motives OF personal
regard, kindness, or sympathy for the sunerlngs
and humiliation of a man who occupied pro-
minent position before the eyes Of the world. 80
far this is all very WELL The sentiment OF kind
ness or commisseration is sweet to the heart,
and mercy is like the dropping Of honey. But
in State affairs-in cases where great principles
are involved and the well being Of society -
concerned-mercy must be tempered with JUS
tice. II is not the individual Davis that Is to
be considered so much AZ the community. He
has rendered himself amenable to the
laws, or, at least, to- . trial, and no in
Justice will be done by trying him.
II it were unjust to try him society would
suffer by the violation Of law and o principle
as we'll as he; but the government has an an
doubted right 10 bring him before that high
tribunal which takes cognixanee Of the offence
with which he b charged. The President has
pardoned many Of the leaders In the rebellion
and In the kindness Of his heart might be dis
posed to pardon Mr.. Davis; but, % he said to
the Baltimore ladies, "the national character of
the question restrained all privste sympathy
which they might have awakened in him."
Whatever may be the decision Of the Supreme
Court, or whatever sction the President may
take afterward, the great object is to- define
through this case what ia or what is not treason
according to the constitution and laws. Of the
United States. The country demands this, not
out of vengeance but as security for the
future. II is impossible to say in advance what
tho decision Of the court will be. II it should
convict Mr.. Dayis of treason the question will
be settled; if it should not we shall see what
laws are necessary to prevent and punish trea-
SON hereafter. That, we apprehend, is the
object OF the trial
The case really has no parallel in the history
of nations, and it will call forth great array
Of legal ability. The press will discuss it uni
versally, and it will engage the attention of
statesmen and lawyers both in this country and
abroad. The federal compact, the reserved
rights of the States, the power of the federal
government over the several States, the ques-
ton as to how far individuals acting under the
authority of State organization are guilty of
treason, and what effect if any, the belligerent
character Of powerful combination such as
that Of the South has upon the question-al
these will come up and be fully discussed.
We said there was no parallel in the history of
nations to this case, because no government
that ever existed was formed like ours With
&ho 1orc ofc al ant
to the several States, as far as regards local
affairs, the individual citizens Of all live under
one constitution and are all citizens of the United
States, az much as the people Of the several
counties Of England, or Of Scotland and Ire
land are subjects OF Great Britain. In the
original compact there was no reservation
made Of the right of secession or dissolution.
The Union was made perpetual. In the ordi-
nary case Of an unlimited or perpetual part
nership in business one membes, from caprice
or any other motive, cannot withdraw to the
injury Of the others. How much more does
this principle apply to nations. One party, or
a portion of the States, could not legally dis
solve the compact without the consent Of the
other. Nor could any number of people with
in the territory embraced in the United States
cease tosbe citizens of our common country by
any act. Of their own, or assumed act of the
people Of the State in which they might dwell.
Every act tending to a dissolution could only
be revolutionary. The dogma. Of the right Of
secession, which originated imam illogical and
extravegant assumption of the rights Of the
States, 10 contrary to reason and the constitution.
The Southern people made the mistake in sup
posing that their right Of local selfgovernment
involved the right to dissolve the Union. Had
they succeeded it would hsve'been successful
revolution only, not vindication Of the right
Of secession.
This Is the great question. that will first come
up before the court in the trial Of Mr.. Davis:
Is he citizen Of the United States? Has be
ever ceased to be, or could he cease to.be,
amenable to the laws Of the United States as
such, while living and acting within the terri
tory over which the government claims to have
authorityi Then will. follow the other ques-
ton, has he made war:on the United, States,
or aided and abetted their enemies in doing SO?
If y citizen, this constitutes treason. Here
there viii be some very nice legal or constitu-
tiOnal questions raised, undoubtedly-as to
what makes pnhlic enemy, and when and
how citizens Of the United States become such,
if insnrrection be. treason, and whether 1t can
be shown that Mr.. Davis initiated. promoted
OF aided, in any, overt act, war waged by
such an enemy. After this we suppose
the belligerent character Of the rebellious
States, as recognized by foreign governments,
and as seemingly recognized by US in block
aiding their ports and exchanging prisoners
with them, will be brought forward as plea
that Davis shonA be treated as prisoner of
war, and not a. traitor. This, however, is
not the legal question. 1t may be considered