Bedford inquirer. [volume] (Bedford, Pa.) 1857-1884, 1865-09-29

| pattel, Book ), chap. III, sec. lbs,
In discussing the same point, and after
alluding to former custom which required
formal declaration of war, Phillimore, D.
662, says" LIN the place of it has arisen the
general mixim that war, ipso facto abro-
gates treaties between the beligerents. =
On the same subject Chancellor Kent saws
~" As a generalrule the obligations of trea-
ties are dissipated by hostility / Kent, IT'S,
On this subject Prof. Leiber says, on %.
s.. All municipal law of the ground on
which the armies stand, or of the countries
to wich they belong, is silent and Of no effect
| between armies in the field. " And
Sergeant Wildman tpage 81 says The
primary effect of ysr IS to extinguish all civil
| intercourse, and place all subjects of BET
| hgefe5tts in the c6sSaition Of enemies This
principle extends not only to the natural
born subjects, but to all persons domiciled
| In the enemies territories: to all who come
to reside there with the knowledge of the
war: and who having cometo reside before
| the war, continued their residence after the
commencement of hostilities for longer
time than is necessary for their convenient
| departure.
For fear some one might contend that
these principles do not apply in cases Of
civil war, we add an additional authority
In considering this question, Vattel, in
his Law of Nations, on page 424 and AS,
uses this language
when in republic the nation is divided
into two opposite factions, and both sides
take up arms, this is called civil war.
The Sovereign indeed never fails to bestow,
| the appellation of Rebels on all such of his
subjects as openly resist him; but when the
latter have acquired sufficient strength to
give him effectual opposition and oblige him
to carry ON the war against them according
to the established rules, he must necessarily
submit to the use of the term cvilwar.'
On earth they have no common superior,
they stand precisely IN the same predscaDaent
as teoo nations eoho engage ala O contest, and
beng unable to come TO an agreement, hare
recourse to arms.
1t is, therefore, perfectly manifest that
these late Rebels are now In the condition of
conquered, subdued behgerents. How may
we lawfully treat them2
When the war has been unjust, Vattel
says
'"Ths whole right of conqueror is derived
from justifable selfdefense, which com pre-
hends the support and prosecution of his
rights When, therefore, he has subdued
a hostile nation, he undeniably may, in the
first place, do himself Justice respecting the
object which has given rise to the war, and
indemnify himself for the expenses and
damages he has sustained by it.
I'VE have right to deprive our enemy
of his possession Of everything which may
augment his strength and enable him to
make war" page 364,
Everything, therefore, which belongs to
the nation, to the state to the sovereign TO
the subjects: everything of that kind, | say,
falls under the description of things belong
ing to the enemy. Page 125.
A conqueror may with justice lay bur-
dens on the conquered nation, both as a COM
pc 4sation for the expenses of the war and as
a punishment Page 3S9
On this subject one of our own authors,
Chancellor Kent, says
But, however strong the current of au-
thority in favor of the modern and milder
construction of the rule of national law on
this subject, the point seems to be no longer
open for discussson in this country; and it
has become definitely settled in favor Of the
ancient and sterner rule by the Supreme
Court ofthe United States. Kent Com,
page SO. Also, see Brown VS.. United
States, 8Cranch, no. See also Ibid, 22S,
229.
Kent in the same connection, in referring
to the case of the cargo of the ship EDaulous
Gallison, 563,in the Circuit Court of the
United States, at Boston, says.
"When the case was brought up, on ap-
peal, before the Supreme Court of the United
States, the broad principle was assumed that
var gave to the sovereign full right to take
the persons and confscate the property of
the enemy, wherever found; and that the
mitigations of this rigid rule, which the
wise and humane policy of modern times had
introduced into practice, might, more or less
affect the exercise of the right but could
not impair the right itself. y
Treatment of Rebels.
We have thus seen how we may legally
treat those lately in Rebellion against us.
How should we treat them? All will admit
that we should desire to act towards them
in such way as best to promote the welfare
OF the people, and add most to the greatness
and glory of our common country. 1t will
depend much upon our action whether the
war just closed, the most gigantic in the
worlds history, shall produce substantial
results, or whether the blood and treasure
of the nation have been shed and expended
in vain. We must be merciful, but mercy
must be tempered with justice. Indiscrim-
mate mercy to the enemy would be danger
and injustice to the nation We must neith
er seek nor ask for vengeance. Whether
our late adyersaries come in true spirit OF
sorrow and repentance, sheathe the sword
and agree to obey the law, in the future we
will extend to them the right hand of fel-
lowship, and forgive them for the past.
After they shall have given us satisfacto
ry security for the future, by reasonable
probation, we will then, but not tiU then,
restore them to the enjoyment of all the in
estimable rights and high privileges which
they so recently, so defantly, and so cause
lessly trampled under their feet. For def
ant and unyielding Rebels; for those who
keep the sword still drawn, reeking with
the blood of our brothers; for those who re-
fuse to accept and submit, in good faith, to
the results of the war; for all who glory In
the part they took in the Rebellion and who
still insist that they were right and the ma
tion wrong, we must have confscation, loss
of citizenship, and, in the end, banishment,
or the halter. Under the law Of nations,
and by the laws of war, we have clear
right to enforce the great objects of all wars
indemnity for the past and security for the
future This right extends to the con6sca-
ton Of the enemy's property after the war
is over.
Even as question of policy and expedi-
ency, or upon the ground of humanity, it is
by no means certain that some such meas
ure is not required for the security of the
future. The war is not ended until the
conquered party has fairly accepted all its
RESULTS. As we have seen, we hold the late
Rebel States by the power Of war as con-
quered belligerents It y not only the right
n IL. ~ A.