The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1866-02-02


deIed uncou dit )nally; but it has been seen
that did not surrender Internationally, but
upon terms-terms engratted upon treaty
ratified and approved by the conqueror's Gov
eminent. Nor is it consistent with good lalth
TO qualify or restrain those terms, so as to make
them inapplicable to acts OF war that may be
claimed 10 have been in violation of the laws OF
war; fer this would be to refine away all the pro-
lection VIII ch has been thrown around me by
treaty, and put me in the power OF the
opposite contracting party who might put
his own construction upon the laws of war.
This very attempt, Mr.. President, has been
made in the case before you. claim to have
escaped, after my ship had been sunk
from under me IN the engagement off CherbouTg.
and had been precpitated into the water, the
enemy not having taken possession ofme, accord
ing TO the laws and usages Of war, as your EX-
cellency may read in almost every page Of naval
history the Secretary of the Navy claiming the
contrary. The true, and the only Just and fair
criterion is, Was the act for which the arrest was
made an act of war? IT so, there is an end 70
the question, and must be discharged Tor, as
before remarked, The convention, if it is any
thing is an oblivion of all the acts of war of
| whatever nature
tried by military tribunal during the war,
may yet be tried by civil tribunal after the
war. Let us try this question also. | was,
Wndoub edly, amenable to the civil tribunals of
the country, as well after as before the conven-
tion Tor any oHense OF purely civil nature, not
founded upon an act OF WARRIOR instance, as
before, the crime OF forgery. If had committed
arraignment, plead the military convention in
bar or trial. Why not? Because that conven-
ton had reference only to acts of war. was
treated with, in my capacity CT soldier and sea-
man. But, does it follow that may be tried for
treason? And II not, whv not?
The Attorneys eneral tells you that treason Is
civil ohense, and in his opinion trlable exclu,
sively by the civil CouIJs, and he hopes you will
give him plenty OF occupation in trying ''many
whom the sword has spared" (See his letter to
you of the Atm Of January 1861 But does not
hot pff Of thpFf do tn
OF war; and is 1t not apparent that you cannot
try me for acts OF war?
The Constitution OF the United States which
the Attorney General says he loves even better
than blood, declares, in words, that treason
against the United States shall consist only in
leyying war against them, OF III adherlng TO
their enemies, giving them aid and comtort-all
OF which adherence, giving of aIG and comfort,
etc., are equally acts of war. There is 10 con-
structive treason IN this country. Thus / can
neither be tried by military tribunal during
the war, nor q civil tribunal after the war, for
| any act OF war, or Tor treason which consists
! only OF acts Of war.
| But il may further he said, that this conven-
! ton, oil which am claiming the protection, is
| not a continuing convention, and will expire
| with the war, when, as Mr.. Speed thinks you
may hand me over to the civil tribunals.
| Whence can such a conclusion be drawn? Not
| from tie terms of the convention, for these
contradict the conclusion; not by implica-
| tion merely but in totaem UeTbiS The terms
are mot TO be disturbed, so long as they
| force where they may reside" A misuse of
| terms, MIR. President, sometimes misleads very
| clever minds. And presume it is by misuse
| OF terms that the Attorney General has fallen
| into this error. (See his letter TO your Excel
| lency, before referred to- That officer, while
! he admits that parole protects the party paroed
t1om trial during war, yet contends that it does
| not protect him from trlal by civil tribunal,
| for treason, after the war; AS l have shown
| that treason can only consist OF acts of
war, and that the military convention IS an
! oblivion OF all acts OF war; the Attorney-Gene.
| raj, when he says that paroled party may be
! tried for treason at the end of the war (the pa
| role beng no longer protection to him), must
mean that the parole will have died with the
war. This is entirely true OF a mere parole, for
| parole is only promise, on the part of pri-
sOner of war, that if he is released from impri-
sonment he will not take up arms again, unless
| he is exchanged. This parole is as frequently
| given by prisoners Of war, who have surrendered
| Internationally, as by those who nave surren-
| dered upon terms. p" ~.
There cannot be any parole, then, without n
| prisoner OF war, and the status of prisoner OF
| war ceasiug, the parole Ceases-for ceSSennie TG-
taone, ceSsdS ct ips0 len. Thus far the Attorney
| General is quite logical, but by confounding in
| his mind the certificates given to the officers
and men of General Johnston's army, stating
| the terms of the Greensboro Convention, and
! guaranteeing those officers and men against
moieststion, in accordance with those terms,
| with paroles, it is easy to see how the mistake
| l am exposing can have been made.
| But the convention made between General
Johnston and General Sherman was not a mere
releasing of prisoners on parole; nor, indeed,
had Il nything TO do with prisoners, for none of
the officers and men of General Johnstons army
| ever were prisoners, as may be seen at glance
| by an inspection of the terms of the convention.
| 1t was treaty between commanding generals in
| the field, in which the word parole is not once
| used, or could be used with prOpriety; a treaty
in which mutual stipulations are made, one in
consideration of another, and there is no limit
as to time set to this treaty. t..-
| On the contrary, 1t was expressly stated that
| tne guarantees contained in 1t were to continue
and be in force so long as the parties to whom
| the guarantees were given should perform their
part of the treaty stpulations. 1t was made not in
contemplation OF a continuation of the war, but
with view to put an end to the war; and the
guarantees we're demanded by us as peace guar
GnteeS. 1t did, in effect, put an end to the war,
and pacify the whole country, General Taylor,
in Alabama and Mississippi, and General Buck
1er and others, in Texas, following the lead Of
General Johnston.
Are we to be told now by an Attorney General
of the United States that the moment the object
OF the convention, to wit, the restoration of
peace, was accomplished, the convention itself
became nullity, its terms powerless to protect
us, and that General Johnston's army surren-
dered, in fact, without any terms whatever
You cannot sustain such an opinion Mr.. Presi-
dent. 1t will shock the common sense
and love of fair play of the American
people. But TO show still further that 1t
was the intention of the parties that this should
be continuing convention, the words used
were mot to be disturbed by the United States
authorities" these words being coextensiye with
the whole power OF the Government. We were
not only mot to be disturbedn by General Sher-
man, or any other military commander or au-
thority, but by any authority whatever, civil or
Sherman, being merely military man, had no
. authority to sneak for the civil branch of the