The state rights democrat. [volume] (Albany, Linn County, Oregon) 1865-1900, 1867-08-10
Tyeason---The Law OF NaSIoa


and arduoua struggle, has put down an' |Sf-
ganised and formidable rebellion; proceed
to try and punish It's defeated advers1i5es
as traitors
This question is readily answered IN
the affirmative by ignorance and passion.
Let US inquire and consider.
U1qucstionably government may r..
fuse from the outset to recognize is Co.
mestic foes as belligerents, engaged ia
lawful war. 1t may say to them, ha
Maximillian did to his Mexican adveRaas
ries,-"You are not warriors, butbandikti
-brigands, robbers-whorn, Il caDsHrsd
by my armies, / shall treat Is a5f1 1sfed
felons." But this is q two-edged skefd,
as Max is very likely to discover ne
government which treats its enensi -
feloDs must expect to have its aaE s.
so treated by those adversarics--to
its soldiers shot or hung when caps6Esd
if it shoots and hangs those whom II 6ap.
lures. Whatever rule it acts upon vii
surely york both ways.
On the main question, the doctrine cen.
orally held by American siatesman and
pubiicists prior 20 1850, will be found
succiaetly set forth by Daniel WebNef.
in his address on laying the corDer-sbpne
Of Bunker Hill Monument dune ST
1880, wherein he says Of the consequen
ces of that memorable combat:
!.The hattie of Bunker Hill was atteI "a
ed with the most important effects beyoEsd
i:s immediate result as military engak6s
ment. 1t created at once state Of cpkn.
public war. There could pow be no ii
er question of proceeding against II
yiduals. as guilty Of treason OF rebeili0n
That fearful crisis was past. The -
peal now lay to the sword and the anlR
question was, whcther the spirit and re-
sources of The people would bold out tiII
the object could be accomplished"
Bear in mind that our fathers bad net
even declared their independents On
18th of june, 1775. when they, fougfl
Bunker Hill-nay, :hey had not ds6
| iy resolved on separation from the n
er country. In the eye of British Ii
and Of tho law of NATIONS, for tkatrns
they were simply rebeIs, reslstink
authority and the army Of their legitimsI
king. Yet Dir. Webster holds that u
naked fact that they resisted in battle.
ray, under the command of their co,
tutcd local authorities, preclnded
civil proceedings against them as 8
yiduals guilty of treason or rebellion.
OF course, Mr. Webster did not on
ate this doctrine. He was not the
to do the like of that. He found Il
tc-fuscd throughout our entirs re
tionary history and literature.
Chief Justice Marshall, in his Ii
/ Washington, relates that, when g
Gage, commanding the kings for
Boston, arrested several emipent n dk
civilians and lodged them in Jail alo1a
With our captured officers and s0ldieEs. "a
be dealt with as traitors, Washington Ss
nonstrated "very seriously against this
unjustifahle measure" (says Mayshall:l
whilc General Gage Regarded the Amer
cans merely as rebels. and treated them
as If the great national resistance theY
were making on principle was to be view
ed as the act of few daring and turba-
lent individuals" and, as such, wrote
Gage, prisoners whose lives are By the
laws of the land, destined to the cord. -
Washington at once instituted measures
for retaliation, should this violation Of
public law and of the laws of war be can
ried into effect, and thereby brought the
British General to recognition Of thp
inst principles of civilized warfare, =
euunciated By Vattel and other writer's By
public lay.
James Otis, the Wyclif or John. Has
of cur revolution, Alexander Hamilt0n
| Gin the Federalist), and all our revoln-
tiouary ppblicists of any authority. refer
to and quote from Vattel's Law Of Na-
tions as setting forth the judgment Of the
civilized world in accordance with the
|, doctrines Of Washington and Webster
!, above cited. Vattel, in bis chapter On
civil war, says:
"But what conduct shall the sewers
observe toward the insurgentsf Ianswsr,
in general, such conduct as shall at he
same time be the most consonant q ins-
tice and the most salutary to the State
Subjects who rise against their pr
without cause deserve severe panish.
ment: yet, even in this case, on accoaist
of the number of the delinquents, cIeusnl
cy becomes duty in the sovereign
: g A civil war breaks the bonds Of 30
ciety and government, or, at least, esls.
pends their force and effect; it produces
inthe nation two Independents parties,
who consider each other as enemies. and
, acknowledge no common judge. Those
two parties, therefore, must necessarily
be considered as thcnceforward c8ns<iln.
ting at least for time two sepArats bod:
les, two distinct societies. Thongh nne 81
the parties may have been to hlnlne il
breaking the unity of the State and re,
sisting the lawful authority, they aFe no.
: the less divided in fact Besides, who
J shall Judge them = They stand, there.
fore, in precisely the same predicamenI
as two nations, who engage in contest,
= aud, being unable to come to an agree
: ment, have recourse to arms. This be-
ing the case, it is very evident that the
common laws Of war ought to be observed
! by both parties in every civil war. Foy
the Same redsons which render the OBJ
E servance of those maxims matter of OBJ.
/ legation between State and State, i bb.
comes equally, and even more necessary
in the unhappy circumstances of two il.
! censed parties laccrating their common
country" s.
j "Thps there exists In the State TIVE
: separate bodies, who pretend to absolute
: independence, and between whom there i
- 49, frL - Inos<ln tIos H..