The Portland daily press., 1865-05-13
Singular Doctrines.

~~SSsAAAAS~
= In the Advertiser Of Tuesday was an ar'i-
Gle on Treason, evidently from the pen Oh lne
leading mind which controls that journal,
bearing the marks of a good deal OF thought
and elaboration. but containing doctrines SO
novel and singular that few extracts may
not be uninteresting. Here are couple;
Has any member of the Cabinet, the law
officer Of the Government or any other high
official. committed himself to the accusation,
or to the opinion, that jefferson Davis, or any
other man connected with the Southern Con-
federacy, is amenable to law for the crime of
treason2 Certainly not.
The high officers OF the Government knoso,
and all well read legal and judicial minds
must kno,c, that neither Jefferson Davis, nor
any Confederate actor in Office with him, is at
all, or under any pretext of taw whatsoever,
amensble to the civil power on the charge OF
treason.
"Treason against the United States" says
the Constitution, Art. g. Sec. 3, @shall consist
only In levying war against them, or In adj
herring to their enemies, giving them aid and
comfort" "The
Congress shall have power to declare the pun
ishment Of treason"
Upon what hypothesis the editor Of the
Advertiser maintains that Davis and his con-
freres are not traitors, and therefore are not
amenable to the civil power on Charge of
treason, it would be difficult to imagine but
for an incidental word or two in other parts
of his article. He does not deign to argue
the point, or to show the grounds of his as
sumption, though he admits that "minds well
informed otherwise"
an their esteem and honest convictions, all
the South who have upheld the Confederacy,
and the leaders, most especially beyond cavil,
are guilty of legal treason, and can be indict-
ed, arraigned, If captured, and convicted, and
ANONYMOUSLY hung, for treason !"
"a grosser error" than this, says the writer
under notice, "never ents---i i. q IN fact, mas
"sion, not Judgment, not research into the
principles Of war and International law-it is
"the impulse Of an excited, earnest, well
meaning, but over-heated loyalty that ami
mates them-commendable In the motive
shut wholly unsupportabIe in the theory"
We suppose the writer's argument to be
this: that SO long as no ouert acts are com.
mitted, designed to overthrow the Govern
ment, there can be no treason, because trea.
son consists in acts rather than words OF In.
tentlons,-and when such open hostility il
once shown the parties become belHgerents
and are therefore excluded from the category
of traitors. If this be the logic Of the writer
IL has this singular effect lit renders the
crime Of treason impossible, and makes Of
traitors mere myth, with no real existence.
We are inclined to believe, however, that Il
Government should lay its hand upon JEFF.
Davis, he would find much more practical
strength and toughness In hemp than in the
logic of the Aduertiser, and that before such
legal hair-splitting and quibbling would ar
rest the attention of the courts, his body. if
not hung on Sour apple tree,' would die
Wondering in the grave" though it is some
what doubtful if his soul would "go marching
on" Nor do we think our civil tribunals
would feel greatly embarrassed by questions
OF international law" in dealing with viola
tors of our own domestic law. In settling
questions which arise between independent
nations international law has binding force,
unless one or the other party feels conscious
OF sufficient power to set 1t aside,-but when
asevcrsign nation comes to deal out Justice
to Its own rebellious citizens, it is difficult to
see what bearing in the case can be had by
any such extraneous laws.
Here is another paragraph from the same
article in the Advertiser, which reads queerly
at the present juncture:
No extradition treaty, or law extant. of
which we have any knowledge, or to which we
have seen any reference, authorizes the de.
mand by our government upon any foreign
government to which Mr.. Davis and his al.
legged conspirators in the murder of President
Lincoln may fee, Of surrender of the fugi-
tives. And why ? Because the crime was
committed, If avall by them, within territory
which for the time was legally foreign terri
tory, or the territory OF a belligerent enemy,
the acts of whom there, however criminal to-
wards the government on this side OF the d.
viding line, were not amenable to punishment
here, on this side Of that line.
So far as the conspirators in Canada are
concerned, their completely in the assassina-
ton being Of Canadian origin, it is very pro-
bable that the above extract is correct but If
Davis should fee to Canada, and an attempt
should be made to shield him or withhold him
from extradition because his offence was COM
mitted in the "foreign territory" Of Richmond,
1t would be interesting to see what response
would be made by our Government. We
think some two hundred thousand "boys in
blue" would settle that question, and while
doing 1t settle Canada also; SO that we should
need no more extradition treaties with her
at least for some time TO come.
In the chaste column in a last evenings