Rutland weekly herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1859-1877, 1865-06-01
RUTLAND HERALD.
SATURDAY, MAY 81, 1865,
The status of Rebel Prisoncrs---Dr.
Iieber.s Opinion.


light of established preoedents the
questions whether the cartel, which adj
mits the rebel soldier as paroled pris-
oner of war, clothes him with immunity
as a citizen and whether, while unex-
changed, he is protected against the
United States. AS to the liability of
prisoners of war for crimes they may
have committed, DR.. Lieber very justly
argues
"The prisoner OF war enjoys, as such,
great privileges; bat he enjoys them
only as prisoner of war-that is to say
as a person taken prisoner when lighting
In the service and by command of bel
ligerent acknowledged as q sovereign
Government, or taken prisoner in public
war. If such person has committed
crimes, that is to say acts Of injury not
covered by the laws of war, he remains
answerable TO the captor for the same,
and will be punished accordingly The
instructions for the government of ar.
mics of the United States in the field,
commanded by President Lincoln to be
published as General Order No. 100,
1868, paragraph so, has these words on
the section on prisoners of war: A
prisoner of war remains answerabe for
his crimes committed against the cap
tors army or people before he was cap
tured, and for which he has not been
punished by his own authorities Thus
it was reported in the Crimean war that
French and English soldiers accused a
Russian officer, then prisoner of war, of
having encouraged his men, in battle, to
kill or mutilate wounded enemies lying
on the field, and that the captured officer
was thereupon tried by court-martial,
found guilty, and executed. Careful in
quiry has not led to satisfactory infor-
nation regarding the fact, but it is
fact that the account Of the transaction
was published in the European journals
of different countries, and nowhere was
any disapprobation expressed against
the procedure or the principle, as indeed
no one could raise any well-founded OBJ
jections. So, if it were discovered that
a prisoner Of war had been concerned in
the poisoning or other assassination of
an enemy, before his capture, he would
plainly remain answerable for the crime,
and would be wholly unprotected by his
status as prisoner of war. The same
would be the case if it were discovered
that prisoner Of war had been guilty
of cruelty against prisoners before his
capture"
Dr. Lieber favors the view that the
conclusion of peace effects substantan-
TALLY an exchange of prisoners and dis
charge of paroles
4" The law and usages OF war, it may
be further observed, allow officers only
to be paroled and singly dismissed on
their parole; make no distinctions as to
obligations or status between the pa
rolled prisoner Of war and the prisoner
of war in custody; and, lastly, all pa
role or imprisonment of prisoners Of
war is naturally at an end with the con-
clusion of peace. It cannot be other
wise. When there are many prisoners
of war in the hands Of the one or the
other belligerent at the time when peace
is concluded, separate arrangement is
agreed upon how the prisoners shall be
marched from the one country to the
other and where they shall be received;
but the restoration of the prisoners is
always considered as natural conse-
quence of peace
He sums up his general conclusions
as follows
Considering the laws of regular war,
the rules adopted by humane Govern
ments in rebelliOns, and our own code
of the laws of war, as well as the prin-
ciples of law in general, the following
results appear plain and just;
al. Any cartel or military agreement
remains military in its character, and
the general to whom any army surren-
ders cannot 90, or be considered to 90
in what he grants, beyond his own mil
itary power. He cannot, as military
commander, determine anything regard
ing the rights, or forfeiture Of rights in
a civil point Of view, Of those who sur
render .sE
90 When q war ceases, prisoners of
war return to, their homes, and paroles
are at an end. So soon as the rebellion
is at an end the power of parole ceases
with it, and the paroled person becomes
again simply citizen or subject, with
undiminished responsibility to the law
Of the land. If an amnesty has been
declared in the meantime, that amnesty
is not military but civil act.
"3. No immunity whatever results
from military convention, beyond the
stipulated military points; and the fact
that written agreement has been en-
tered into by two conflicting parties, in
a rebellion, does not by any means i'm
ply pardon of the offenses committed
up to the time Of the agreement.
: "a. Prisoners Of war remain always
responsible for penal crimes committed
before the capture.
"5. All that, in a rebellion, formal
and stipulated surrender implies, and
can imply in good faith, is that the act
of appearing in arms against the other
contracting party shall not be visited as
a crime, so far as the articles Of sur
render go, and so long as they, in their
nature, can last
"6. Those who rebelliously have taken
up arms cannot enjoy greater immune
ties than the civilians who have aided
the rebellion, and all the privileges they
can enjoy are those only which arise out
s of the stipulated conditions, distinctly
laid down in the agreement Of surren-
der, and thereby consented to by the
captor." -r...#
n H.