The Nashville daily union. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1862-1866, 1866-01-25


: that treaty and its successors had 3
cured the Confederate leaders from II
81 and punishment for the crime {
Rebellion. 1t is true, accordingly, tbs
; the word of honor accorded by Liel
{ teuat General Grant for pTotecnO
Z against punishment for the crimes {
! treason, rebellion, and armed attemp
! % oTerthroH the Government, bein
accepted By the Government Injured I
|, asubstantial pardon of the great Cor
,, iederate Army, from Lee down to hi
/, raWest Richmond negro recruit 70
! those armies. The charge of armed re
sistance 10 the Government has neve
been officially investigated against an,
one OF these men, not even against th,
hero Of Fort Pillow.
But Admiral Semmes confounds III,
immunity which he has received As al
armed insurgent with the immunit,
which ne thought he received, but did
not, Tor his alleged violations Of the
iaws-ot war. Now, il viii not be fl
cult 10 show, from our Own rules snd
precedents-and without any elaborate
resort 10 Grolius, Vsttel, Puffendorf, OF
other ancient authorities, who, blythe
way, would not help Us out in our
difhculty-that the pea of Admiral
Semmes is entirely untenable.
l. Authority invalidstes the plea.
The celebrated General Order No 100.
of the series of 1868, from the War De-
psrtment, contains code of military
service on land which, singular as the
statement may seem, is undoubtedly
the trst of its kind in the world. Ii IS
styled The Instructions for the Gov
efnment of Armies of the United States
IN the Field Paragraph SO of these
instructions contains the following per
unent rule: A." A prisoner of war re-
mains answerable for his crimes against
the csptOrs army or people before he
was Captured, and for which he has not
been punished by his own authorities
| a reference TO this remarkable code
will disclose several other laws which
bear upon the same point, and fortify
our conclusions But it will be unneces-
sary to add proof to 50 pat and positive
a decision. This Law was published
long before the act charged against
Semmes was committed, and by so
much the more, therefore, before the
cartel at Durham Station, upon which
Semmes now stands. To treat him as a
prisoner of war is, of course, the most
favorable position in which to place the
Confederate sailor-soldier, since, as q
surrendered insurgent, as a rebel, he
might become still more involved Yet,
as prisoner of war, ne is ansWerable |
upon charges Of crime committed be-
fore surrender, "1Or which he has not
been punished by his own authorities.
That he has not been so punished Is, Of
course, no matter Of dispute. The di-
rect and pointed reference of this rule
10 Semmes case relieves Us Of the ne
cessity Of searching for further all
thority.
H. Precedent invalidates Semmes |
plea Here, again, we do not propose |
10 20 into European history, although |
very recent examples could be cited 10 |
tle point, but to look at our own prac-
tige within a year When Fort Nor. |
gan was captured, in Mobile Bay, Gen. !
Psge, who commanded the enemy, re- |
ceiyed honorable surrender for himself |
and his men Our officers, however, !
were led to suspect that, after he had /
h0sted the white flag on the glacis, he |
hal destroyed a part of the works, ar /
miment, and munitions, and, particu- |
lahy, that he had spiked some guns
ami chopped and sawed TO pieces all
the spare gun-Carriages. Accordingly /
hewas carried to New Orleans, and
council of war convened TO examine
intl the facts. The evidence complete
ly pxonerated him; but the tact of /
holding the trial at all showed that /
yiOiLtions of the usages of war could be 1
inquired into, even in the case of pa
rolled prisoners Still more in point is
thecase Of Wirz, the forever-execrable
AniersOnyille iailOr lie not only also
received parole but precisely the
SANE parole with Semmes, as 4 brother
other in precisely the same army
that Of Johnston His name was
borne on the same rolls Aud afterwards
he vas arrested, Ike Semmes, tried on
mre heinous offence under the same
chgge-that Of violation of the usages
of var-conyicted and executed. The
sane plea Of the parole signed on the
2Uu OF April, ls6J, by Generals John
stol and sherman, was put in, but il did
notaVaiL In that case, as ia this, the
crimes charged against Wirz had all
been committed before the capitula-
tior and parole So directly in point
is this precedent, so recent in occur
rene, amt 30 well known, that no pains
need be taken to look further. Other
wise, We might quote the case now ac-
Arra rN- L
Mercer in Savannah. That officer was,
like Senme5, a Confederate Brigadier
Genera, like him an officer in John
stons amy; like him included in the
same parole, in the surrender TO Sher-
man; lie him lived quiet and unmo-
Tested a his home for months; like him
was then arrested and conhed under
guard; ald like him awaits trial for vi
olstion the usages of war. Only
few daysago, the Confederate Captain
Colemanis reported TO have left New
Orleans for Havana, having been tried
by military commission, and banished |
for some act OF steamboat burning
while be vas under General Forests
command
Il will )e seen, therefore, how rule |
and custom authorize the proceedings /
of the Secretary Of the Navy. 1t is
very true tlat a strong appeal might be |
made for Saumes, not like the Mobile |
paper, becalse he has been so good, |
noble and c1ivalric" in his warfare, but |
because Of the general disposition in
Government not 10 punish crimes; be- |
cause OF tie length of time during |
which he las lived quietly at home, !
when he might have escaped; because |
of the Misunderstanding caused by |
those diffuse and general terms of pa
role or becuse Of the universal peace
which nov rsigns, and which has ceased /
to make punishment for the sake Of /
example 10 future beliigereney 50 i'm
po-tant as it once was. some, or all, /
OF these poirts might be made the sub. /
ject Of argument Bat it is clear that /
there is htuepropriety in any protest
against the action Of the Navy Depart.
ment on the ground that that action
was a piece o Austrian tyranny