The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1867-05-31

TIE following article, an editorial leader in the
New York Tribune Of Monday last, evidently writ
ten by Mr.. GREELEY, will be perused with interest
by our readers:
TREASON m CIVIL WAR.
Can a Government which, after a long and ardn-
Gus struggle has put down an organized and formi-
dsble rebellion, proceed to try and punish its de-
feated adverssries as traitors
This question is readily answered in the afirma-
tive by ignorance and pa,siol-perhaps also by
wisdom and calm judgment. Let us inquire and
consider.
UnquestionabIy, a Government may refuse from
the outset to recognize its domestic foes as bei-
gerents, engaged in lawful war. It may say to
them, as Macmillan did to his Mexican adver-
saries-"You are not warriors, but banditti--
brigande, robbers-whom, II c,ptured by my
armies, shall treat as arrested felons." But this
is two-edged sword, as Max is very likely to dis
cover. The Government which treats it's enemies
as felons must expect to have it's adhorents so
treated by those adyersaries-to have its soldiers
shot or hung when captured, il it shoots and hangs
those whom it captures. Whatever rule it acts
upon will surely work both ways.
On the main question, tho doctrine generally
held by American statesmen and publcists prior
to 1860 will be found succinctly set forth by Daniel
Webster in his address on laying The cornerstone
Of Bunker Hill Monument June II, 1S25), where
in he says OF the consequences OF that memorable
combat
'"Ehe battle of Bunker Hill was attended with
| the most important effects beyond its immediate
| result as a military engagement. It created at
once state Of open, public war. There could now
diyiduals, as guilty of treason " rebellion. That
fearful crisis was past. The appeal now lay to the
sword; and the only question was, whether tho
spirit and the resources OF the people would hold
out till the object should be accomplished"
| Bear in mind that our fathers had not even de-
clared their independence on the 18th Of June,
| Its, when they fought nt Bunker Hill-nay, they
had not dcfnitively resolved on separation from
| tho mother cou try. in the eye Of British law
| and Of the law OF nations, for that mattcr-thoy
were simply rebels, resisting the authority and
| the army OF their legitimate king. Yet Mr.. Web
ster holds that the naked fact that they resisted in
baltic array, under the command of their constitu-
ted local authorities, precluded any civil proceed
ings against them as individuals guilty of trea-
son or rebellion"
or course, Mr.. Webster did not originate this
doctrice. He was not the man to do the like Of
that. He found it intertused throughout the en-
tire Revolutionary history and literature. Thus,
Chief Justice Marshall in his Life of Washington,
relates that, when General Gage, commanding tho
Kings forces in Boston, arrested several eminent
Whig civilians and lodged them in jail, along with
our captured officers and soldiers to be dealt
very seriously against this unjustifable
measure" lsays Marshall); while General
Gage regarded the Americans merely az rebels,
and treated them if the great national resistance
they were making on principles was to be viewed
as the act Of few daring and turbulent indiyid-
uas," and, as such, wrote Gage: prisoners whose
lives are by the laws Of the land, destined to tho
| cord" Washington at once instituted measures
for retaliation, should this violation of public low
and of the laws of war be carried into effect and
thereby brought the British General to rccogni-
ton of the just principles of civilized warfare, as
enunciated by Yattel and other writer's on public
law.
James Otis, the Wyclif or John Huss of our
Revolution, Alexander Hamilton lin the Feder-
ast), and all our Revolutionary publicists OF any
authority, refer to and quote from Vattels Law OF
Nations setting forth the Judgment OF the civil
lied world Ill accordance with the doctrines OF
Webster and Washington above cited. Fatlel, in
hls chapter on Civil War, says:
"But what conduct shall the sovereign observe
toward the insurgents I answer, in general,
such conduct as slall at the same time be the
most consonant to justice gainst the most saluta-
ry to the State. Subjects who rise against
mcnt yet, even III his case, OIL account OF the
number of tho delinquents, clemency becomes n
duty in the sovereign. civil war
breaks the bonds Of society and government, or,
produces in the nation two independent parties,
who consider each other as enemies, and ac-
knowledge no common judge. Those two
parties, therefore, must necessarily be con-
sidcred as thenceforward constituting, at
least for o time, two separate bodies, two
distinct societies. Though one of the parties
NAV have been to blame in breaking the unity
of tho State and resisting the lawful authority,
shall Judge them They stand therefore
n precisely the same predi ,alnent as two nations
who engaged in contest, and, being unable to
como 10 m agreement have recourse to arms
This being the case, it is very evident that the
common laws of war ought to be observed by both
parties in every civil war. For the same reasons
which render the observance Of those maxims 8
matter of obligation between State and State, II
becomes equally and even more necessary In the
unhappy circumstances of two incensed parties
lacerating their common country" '"r .us there
exist in tho State two separate bodies, who pre-
tend to absolute independence, aud between whom N,
arms [not courts of civil law] and as two different
nations would do. The obligation to obscrve tho
common laws of war toward each other Is there
fore absolute -indspensably binding on bott
parties, and the same which the law Of nature I'M
poses on all nations in transactions between Stats
and State"