The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1867-07-12
From the Martinsburg New Era
RelIIYereut Rights

beubXerent htKhtE.
A case has lately been decided in the
United States Circuit Court-North Car
olina-ShOrtridge ct al, rs. Macon
Chief Justice Chase presiding-in which
the Court, recognizing the decision of
the Supreme Court i'll the Prize Cases.
sans: ''lu modern times, il is the usual
practice of civilized Governments, at
taci;cd by organized and formidable re-
bellion, Ia exercise and cOHcede beliigr-
cRf righis '-riting, for illustration. the
exchange OF prisoners during the war.
Confederate prisoners had not only re-
sisted the laws OF the United States,
and aided iii establishing another GOV
ernment than that of the United States,
but had, us soldiers, of conrse, attacked
the prisons and taken the lives of citi-
zens Of the United States III battle.
This was bclligerent act proper. Was
not the seizure OF property by officers
and soldiers to sustain their armies an
other accompanying exercise of bellig-
erent rights And yet, if the prisoner
is not punished during the war in any
way, or held to any responsibility by
the laws of nations, in civil, more than
in any species of wars-why should they
be for inlpressing property or arresting
deserters The officer or soldier can
not, by those laws, be indicted OF sued
during the war in the courts for iniury
to the person of his antagOnist-why for
injuries TO his property!
The rule, as stated by the Court, is
founded upon the "frightful evils of
mutual reprisals and retaliation" if
each belligerent did not ''cOncede' 80
the other the rights exercised and
claimed by itself. If prisoners were
punished on our side, they wonld be pun
ished on the other-and so, if the armies
of the United States could rightfully
seize forage in a Southern State, with
out its officers and soldiers being held
liable in damages, and yet should pun
ish the officers and soldiers of the Con-
federate armies for the exercise of
similar right, the inevitable result
would be, in the progress of the war,
yindictive and baTbaric retaliatory
measures.
Hence the necessity of a mutual con-
cession of these rights during war-in
reference to its humane conduct. Can
they be punished, afterwards, without
inaugurating Il new principle of militia
ry warfare in the laws of nations, and
without, in subsequent conflicts, lead
ing to those same "reprisals" and
''frightful evils" which these ''conces-
sions," during the pendency OF Il strug-
gle, are designed to avert :
While these concessions, the Court
says, establish no rights except during
the war, il admits that, when war
ha -,>at,alttac g ..Ia faA laNr
are seldom inflicted OH the many" and
that "completG remission is usually eX-
tended to large classes by amnesty, or
other exercise of legislative or execu
tive authority This remission must,
upon principle, extend to pecuniary rs
well as personal responsibility. The
basis of it, AS stated by the Court, is
that ''many are carried into rebellion
by sincere though mistaken convic-
tions, or hurried along by excitements
due to social and State sympathies, and
even by the compulsion of public
opinion not their own"
Ii would be u monstrUGs absurdity-
not to say fraud-to acknowledge,
ilnring the existence of the war, those
belligerent rights to which we have re-
ferred, but to repudiate and punish
them afterwards-to derive the benefit
of their mutual recognition, where
their violation could be avenged, and TO
pronounce condemnation and punish
ment only when it is, subsequently, safe
TO do SO! The ultimate consequences
of such policy would necessarily re-
suit i'll the nfischiefs we have pointed
ont.
The text books are not silent on these
subjects. They announce these prin-
ciples
'Whatever is permitted to one, in
virtue of the state of war, is also per-
mitted to the others. Tdftcl.
"An amnesty is to be granted when
the offenders are numerous. When the
amnesty is once published and accept
ed, whatever has passed must be buried
! i'll oblivion. No one is to be called to
an account for what has been done rela-
/ tive to the disturbances. Ibid.
/ "As to the reparation of any damages,
are the military, Generals, Officers, and
Soldiers, in conscience obliged to repair
the injuries which they have done! l
am surprised that the judicious Grotius
should without distinction hold the
affirmative."-Ibid.
! In the ca SO referred to, the Court took
the broad distinction between the pow
ers of an independent or de facto Gov
Iernment--which the defendants coun-
sci claimed the Confederate States to
be, and therefore, by the Laws Of Ma
tions, authorized, as alien enemies, to