The Portland daily press., 1865-05-25
rIe Criminal Status Of JEFF. Davis.

The New York World-the leading Demo
cratic paper in New York City differs very
widely from the copperhead Journals Of this
city In relation to the nature Of JEFF Davis
crimes, and his liability to trial for treason
under the civilian. In reply to ceres
pondent who appears to entertain views SIM
liar to those of the Advertiser and argus,
the editor of the World holds the following
explicit and generally sensible language:
Ifour laws AGAINST treason were the same as
those ri ENGLAND the murderer OF Mr.. LIN
coIN. or completely in plot to murder him,
would be treason. BY the English law, "when
"a man doth compass or imagine the death oil
eour lord the king, of our lady his queen, or
"of their eldest son and heir" he Is guilty OF
high treason. But the Constitution ofthe
United States limits the crime of treason to
acts having some relation to war. NTreason
against the United States" this is its lam
goage, "shall consist only in levying war
against them, or adhering to their enemies,
"giving them aid and comfort Whether
JEFFERSON DAVIS has levied war against
the United States IL O question that does
not admit of argument. Had he been arrest
ed Eve days after the firing upon Fort Sum-
ter, and put on trial for treason, there can be
! no doubt that he would have been legally
convicted. Has anything that since trans
PRED absolved him from the guilt that he had
then incurred, and exempted him from his
liability to punishment? On the broad prin-
cipies OF common sense and natural justice,
one would say that if It is q crime for citi-
zen to levy war against his country, the great
ness of the offence and extent of the mischief
would simply add TO its enormity. There was
period when Davis would have been liable
\ for treason, or else there is no possibility OF
that crime being committed. Its head and
front. according to the Constitution, consists
| In levying war against the United States; and
| It would be curious, indeed, if those who de-
| 6ne the crime intended that the liability should
| lapse If the war became SO real as to, cOnsLi-
tute what is technically called a state OF bel
| ligerency. sssd srfes, heassssslga lal ~
n If Davis has ceased to be liable for the trea-
son which he has most undoubtedly commit
ted, at what particular point in the progress
| Of the war, and by what particular act, was
proclamation, in May, 1851, recognizing the
South as q bellgerent9 According to that,
If DAVIS had been arrested a month previous
! to the first battle OF Bull Run, our govern
ments could not have tried him for treason.
| Ii this doctrine be admitted, our laws for the
| punishment of treason can at any time be an
snulled by any foreign power, whenever there
1 arises an occasion for their execution. Trea-
son consists in levying war against the Uni
ted States; and If the war thus levied is recog-
nized by foreign power as an existing fact,
1t is strange and whimsical doctrine that the
| treason ceases in consequence ofthis foreign
4 testimony to the main fact which constitutes
the essence of the crime. Besides, itswould
| not be In consonance with the national digni-
| ty that the operation of the Constitution should
depend upon the caprice ola foreign govern
| ment. Y lis hG4 D51Al&A q
Our correspondent alleges that we have
recognized state of belligerency by the cx-
change of prisoners. But when the war ends,
what is the status of such prisoners? In q
war between independent powers their mutual
| surrender is provided for in the treaty -oi
peace, when they become subject to the laws
| OF their respective countries, precisely as II
no war had existed. But 10 rebellion, when
the state Of war is terminated by the prostra
ton and subsection of the rebel belligerent
the prisoners revert from belligerency to citi'
zenship, and are subject to the laws of their
| own victorious government. The status of a
| prisonerof war is belligerent status; 1t ii
temporary In its nature, and can continue nc
longer than the state Of belligerency lasts
After rebellion has been crushed, 1t is in the
i discretion of the governmental fix time when
the laws of war shall have no further applica
ton. rEsa
Prisoners of war, as such, are entitled Il
certain exemptions and privileges; but it is
ridiculous TO consider Davis in that light, al
though the government by keeping up militia
ry forms of proceeding beyond any necessity
and in cases where they have no application
seem to be doing all in their power to give
color of Justice to the claim that Davis Il
amenable only to the laws of war. eqA