New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1867-06-03
TREASON.

Forty or fifty journals having seen tit TO say
that we have assumed or ass6rroa that there
was no fundamental difference between the
late Southern Rebellion and the American
Revolution, we are moved to remind them
that we consider the two as wide asunder as
the poles-the one struggle for Liberty the
other an effort to diffuse and perpetuate
Slavery. If this is not a difference, we know
not what could be. But they were alike in
ths-that each of them was formidable
instruction, under local authority against
what had previously been the paramount or
National authority; and they were alike in
coming within the purview of the doctrine
laid down by Mr.. Webster in his earlier Bunker
Hill Oration-as follows:
"The battle OF Bunker Hill attended with tho most
important effects beyond its immediate result as mill
tary engagement 1t created at once state OF OPEN
pubic war There could nor be no longer question. OF
proceeding against indcdGis gtHy Of treason or re-
1eiion That fearful crisis was past The appeal now
lay TO the sword and the only question Was whether tg
spirit and tho OF tho people would h0a out TIL
tho object should be accomplished
why is it that most Of those who seek to
differ with us on this matter are as shy OF this
passage as the Evil One Of holy water, or
mad dog of water of any kind
One valiant soul does venture to say that the
than as above. But do you fancy MIR. Webster
ignorant of that defnitionf Yet do you observe
how broadly he takes his ground, as II 1t were
universal aud incontrovcrtible
Now let us look at the Constitutional pro-
vision:
"Treasop against the United States shall cOnss, only
In levying against them or ~ adhcfnB W lne cno
mies, giving them aid and comfort
Here is a plain effort TO so define treason
as TO preclude all constructive or artificial
treasons-to confinc il within narrower limits
than those prescribed by the common law.
Evidently, no one dreamed of duplicating large
class who were not traitors by British law.
Who. then, are traitors by the terms of the
Federal Constitution
Not all who levy war against our country
for the British and the Mexicans have done
that, yet were in no sense traitors. Nor yet
all who live in this country yet levy war upon
us; for Indians often do that, yet are not held
guilty of treason. Nor yet all that owe ale
glance 10 our Government; for when the
British, in 1913. undertook to treat as traitors
the Irshmen fighting against them III our
armies, Gen. Scott resisted, with the full APP
proval of our Government and People, ana
would have hung every British officer then IN
our hands, if the British had shot or hung our
Irish soldiers as traitors.
Doubtless our Government might, in the
infancy of the Rebellion have seized and tried
the leading Secessonists as traitors. But when
the progress of events had created what Mr..
Webster terms "a state of open, public war;
and we had recognized the fact by exchanging
prisoners. and even privateersmen, the case
was bravely altered. "There could now be no
"longer question OF proceeding against indi-
"yiduals AS guilty of treason or rebellion" So
SAYS Mr. Webster; and we do not believe an
American jury could be fairly selected in any
State 10 reverse his judgment.