The Plymouth weekly Democrat. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1860-1869, 1867-06-27

ray, under command of their constituted
local authorities. precluded atty civil pro-
ceedinSs against them as "irdiyiduals
guilty Of treason or rebellion"
OF. course, Mr.. Webster did not oris;.
nate this dUctrine. He found it intertused
throughout our entire Revolutionary his
tory and literature. Thus. Chief.iustice
Marshall, in his Life OF Washin gton. re-
lates that, when General Gage, cot:,mand-
ing the Kings forces in Boston. arrested
several eminent Whig civilians ana lodged
them in Jail. along with our captured Off
GERS and soldiers to be dealt with as trait
ors, Washington demonstrated every seri
ously against this uniustifiable measure -
(says Marshall while General Gage "re.
garded the Americans merely as rebels,
and treated them as if the great national
resistance they were making on principle
was to be viewed as the act of few dar-
ing and turbulent individuals" and, as
such, wrote Gage: prisoners whose lives
are, by the laws of the land, destined to
the cord." Washington at once institu.
ted measures for retaliation, should this
violation of public law and of the laws of
war be carried into effect, and thereby
brought the British General to recosui-
ton of the best principles of civilized war
fare, as enumerated by Waite! and other
writers on public law.
J1mes Otis, the Wyclif or John Huss
of our Revolution, Alexander Hamilton
On Tie teaerulis., and all our Hevolu-
houafy publIcists of any authority. refer
to and quote from Vattel's Law of Nations
as setting forth the judgment of the civil
lied world in accordance with the doc
trlnes of Webster and Washington above
cited. Vattel, in his chapter on Ci4il
War, says:
"Bht what conduct shall the -o4creien cb-
serve towards the insurgents | answer, in
general, such coduct as shall at the same time
0e the most consOnant to Justice and the most
salutlry to the State. <
Subjects who rise against their prince with
out cause deserve severe punishment: vet.
even In this case, on account of the number
OF The dellnquents; clemefcy becomes duty
IN the sovereign. A civil war
breaks the bonds of society and government.
or, at least, sus" ends their force and effect ;
1T produces in the nation two independent
parties, who consider each other as enemies.
and acknowledge no common Judge. Those
two parties, therefore, must necessarily be
considered as ttencefornard constituting, a.
least for time, two separate bodies. two dis
tinct societies. Though one of the uartics
may have been to blame in breaking the uni
ty of the state and resisting the lawful au-
thority, they are not the less divided in fact
Besides who shall judge them? x
They stand, therefore, in precisely the same
predicament as two nations who, engaged in
a contest, ard being unable to come to an
agreement, have recourse to arms. This be-
ing the case, 1t IS very evident that the com
mon laws of war ought to be observed by
both parties in every civil war. For the same
reasons which render the observance Ofthose
maXlms matter Of obligation between State
and State, 1t becomes equally. and even more
necessary in the unhappy circumstances of
TWO lnccnced parties laceratng their COM
mon country. Thus there exists in the State
two separate bodies. who pretend to absolute
independence, and between whom there is
no judge. They decide their quarrel bv
arms, mot courts Of civil law,) and as two
different nations would do. The obi CATION
to observe the common laws of war toward
each other is therefore absoitfe-indispens
ably binding ON both parties, and the same
which the law of nature imposes on all ma.
lions i'll Transactions between State and
State"