The Portland daily press., 1865-05-15


horss-thisves had possession Of any town
ships On the Canadian frontisr, 40 that ne esos-
ernor had 10 call out the militia H. 70 erect
thelr arrest, II took Dc faeso war o. iour
yenrs, IL which we're nuces, military negosis-
uous. ear. a. truce. exchange Of prisoners
aven c.,.,ia ma s0t, amer they were arrested,
~, 49,, =, ,bslr trial aad send them 10 pzls-
a., w, might not Try tsnth Of them nor
actually punish teuth Of NE tenth, but the rest
wosld owe their impunity 70 the clemency Of
sne paFdoning power, and not 10 any nonsen-
deal action Of natural belligerent rlghts.--
Courts q law. whether state or national, are
controlled By the terms OF statutes, and are
noi a. heA on vague speculation about natu-
raj ughh-
What Is belligcrent 10 an lnsurrection but
a mAn who fights the sheriff come 10 arrest
him. On the 18th Of April, 1891, the Presi-
dent issued his proclamation declaring that
there were combinations OF persons In Ger
tain States obstructlng the execution Of the
laws, ordering sueh persons 70 dispense In
twenty days, and calling out sevenfy-fve
kIOUNMNU mllltlA AAANu W eEfA ~@~ o~N1% N~@-A7
blnAtions. -Four days later be issued another
proclamation, styling this combination an IN
surrecti0n. This instruction, with the arm
ed posse OF the executive power, the national
forces, he has ever since been steadily sup
pressing, subduing and arresting. To say
that the criminals, when arrested, are not to
be tried, not to be punished, on account of
any considerations pertinent to any assumed
inlmunities of theirs, is to say that the posse
was called out for no purpose, that the war
had no cause, and that we had been dancing
in this carnival of mutual murder to the hor.
ror of the whole world in a wanton crusade
against peaceable fellow countrymen.
But Great Britain and other foreign pow
ers have recognized the belligerency of the
rebels. Should loyal American citizen ar
rogate rights for traitors as against his own
government, based upon an act of foreign
State, false, treacherous, and received every
where among our countrymen as an insult
and grievance amply sufficient to justify
war Besides such British recognition Of
belligerencg related only to the status of Bril-
fish subjects, within the limits OF British SOW
ereignty; it has no relation whatever to rights
of persons under american sovereignty, and
amenable to the laws Of the United States;
when such persons surrender, or are arrested,
they surrender themselves to the jurisdiction
of the Constitution and laws of the United
States and not to the Jurisdiction OF the I'M
written code of nations.
But our own government has instituted a
blockade, has exchanged and paroled prison
ers, has interchanged military correspond
ence, has received and sent flags of truce, and
otherwise recognized the de facto govern
ment OF JEFF. Davis. All these acts we adopt
ed, not to betTiend rebels, not to recognize
any rights of nationality or belligerency, but
TO make the war more safe, more effective and
more speedy. They are all ancillary to the
i1Gr. And the war is Neutrality-suspicious. the
rebellion In ITSELF and in all its CIVIL political,
international and military pretentions. We
carry on the war to arrest for the purpose of
Furnishing the rebels; we enter into these mil
itary arrangements for the purpose OF effect
ually carrying on the war.
An easy analogy helps our understanding.
The sheriff has warrant for a criminal-an
adultefer, If you please. The adulterer arms
his servants, barbados his house and resists
the arrest. The sheriff approaches the prem
ises with his armed posse. Shots are ex-
changed. 1t is war. The criminal has be-
come bslligerent. Now, If after being sue
cessfully resisted for three hours, the sheriff
consents to parley from the roof, or even
enters into arrangements to suspend his at
tack that the dead body of constable may be
removed under the fire, or q wounded hostler
in the house may have surgical aid, has he SO
far pledged the faith of the State that Judge
Davis cannet try the adulterer, when at last
the sheriff shall oyerpower him, but must let
him go out Of court as belligerent, with the
added crimes Of riot and murder on his head
An officer has q process against an indicted
man, let us suppose, for subornation OF per-
| jury. He meets him In another State. The
Indicted man, not wishing to submit to the
ignominyof travelling in the company of a
sheriff or going to jail, gives the officer his
check to secure his attendance at the time
and place of trial-giues him his parole
How does this transaction, wholly Incidental
to the arrest, the military power, in any
way preclude the Judicial power from pro-
ceedng just as If the man had lain all the in
tervening time in Jail
We have purposely abstained thus far from
assailing the absurd doctrines of the Aduer-
tiSer by authorities, II 1t were necessary thus
to answer propositions enforced only by one or
two citations thatfully disprove them. In an
other article we hope TO show that the pretend,
ed research into the principles of war and in
ternational law was an impudent assumption
designed TO deceive pitiful circle Of wofully
shallow and prejudiced partizans.