New-York tribune., 1867-05-27
TREAGON ~ CLT[L WE


Can Government. which, after long and
arduous struggle has put down on organized and
| formidable Rebellion, proceed to try ard punish
ia defeated adycBaries as traitorsf
This question is readily answered in the
| Affirmative by ignorance and passion-peIhapo
also by wisdom and calm Judgment. Let Us
| inquire and consider.
Un1uostionably. Government may refuse
| from the outset TO recognize it's domestic foes
"A beligcrcnts. engaged in lawful war. 1t may
| say TO them, as Maximilian did to his Mexican
| adyersaries-" You are not warriors, but ban
fditti-brigands, robbcrs-whOm, if captured
"by my armies, shall treat as arrested fc0ns.'
But this is a twO-cdged sword as Max. is very
! likely to discover. The Government which treats
| its enemies as fclOns must expect to have ITS
adhcrcnts so treated by those adycrsaries-to
have It's soldiers shot or hung when captured,
| if it shoots and hangs those whom it captures
Whatever rule it acts upon will surely work
| both ways.
On the main question. the doctrine generally
| held by American statesmen and publicists
prior to 1860, will be found succincty set forth
| by DANIEL WEBSTER, in his Address on laying
the corner stone of Bunker Hill Monument
| (JUne lIn, loSDJ NicItlll HV o'J" VI VII" N'''
| sequences of that memorable combat:
"Tbe battle OF Bunker Hill was attended with the most
important effects beyond its immediate result as mill
tary engagement. IL created at once state OF open,
public war There cOuM be no Longer question OF
Proceeding against indriddIS guilty Of treason or re
beiOn That fearful crisis was past The appeal now
lay the sword and the only question was wttncr !nv
spirit and tho OF the people would hold out TIL
| the object should be accomplished
Bear in mind that our fathers had not even
| declared their independence on the nth oil
! June, t775 when they fought at Bunker Hill
! nav, they had not dcfntivcy resolved on sep
| aratiOn from the mother country In the eye
of British law-and of the law of nations, for
that mattcr-they were simply rebels, resisting
the authority and the army of their legitimate
king. Yet Mr.. Webster holds that the naked
! fact that they resisted in battle array, under
the command of their constituted local author
tiles, prccudcd any civil proceedings against
them as "individualsiguilty of treason or re-
"bcllion."
OF course. Mr. Webster did not originate
| this doctrine. He was not the man to do the
like of that He found it intcrfused through
out our entire Revolutionary history and liter
! ature Thus, Chicf-Justice Marshall, in his
Life of Washington, relates that, when Gen.
| Gage. commanding the kings forces in Boston,
| arrested several eminent Wing civilians and
lodged them in Jail, along with our cap
| turcd officers and soldiers to he dealt
with as traitors, Washington demonstrated
every seriously against this unjustilia-
"bc measure" (says Marshall y while Gen.
| Gage regarded the Americans merely as
rebels, and treated them as if the great
national resistance they were making on
principle was To bc viewed as the act of n
" few daring and turbulent iRdiridudS," and,
as SUCH wrote Gage prisoners whose lives
a. are, by the laws of the land destined TO the
cord.r Washington at once instituted meas
! urcs for retaliation, should this violation of
public law and of the laws of war bc carried into
| effect, and thereby brought the British Gen
! eral to u recognition of the just principles of
civilized warfare. az enunciated by Nattel and
other writers Oh public law.
James Otis, the Wycf or John Iiuss of our
Revolution, Alexander Hamilton (n The Fed
eyaiiSO, and all our Revolutionary publicsts of
any authority, refer to and quote from Natters
Law of Nations as setting forth the Judgment
of the civilized world in accordance with the
doctrines of Webster and Washington above
| cited Nattcl, III his chapter on CINll war;
/ says:
But what conduct shall the sovereign observe toward
the insurgcntsf answer. IN general such conduct
shall Mt the time bc the most C0usonaut 10 Justice
and the saluary 10 the State Subjects who
against their prince without deserve pun
ishmcnt: yet In this account of The number
NJ Ue deipqueats Cemcncy becomes ddy In the
reign. - "A civil breaks the bonds OF society and
government at least susponds their force and effect;
II produces In the nation two independent parties. who
consider each other enemies and acknowledge
mon Judge. Those two paroles, therefore, must neces
sarly be considered HcefOrrdrd constituting, at
least for time two separate bodies two distinct socie
ties. Though OF the parties may have been 10 blame
in breaking the unity Of the state and resisting the lawful
authority they not the less divided in fact Besides.
who shall Judge them They stand. therefore,
in precisely the same predcament ns two nations who
engage In acOntest and being unable To tOan
ment, have recourse 10 arms. THIS being the 10 is
evident that tine common laws Of ought 20 be
observed by both parties IN every civil For the
which render the Observance of those
inns matter Of obligation between State and state 10 he
equally and necessary ut he uhdppHcir
cHDsdnefS Of tcO nceHsed parties dCerdHg their
country" Thus there exist In the State two separate
bodies, who pretend TO absolute independence, and be-
tween whom there is Judge They decide their quarrel
by mot courts OF civil aw, and two different
tiOns would do The obligation TO observe the common
laws of toward each other Is therefore dbSOi0ein
dspensably binding on both parties and the which
the law OF nature imposes all nations IN transactions
| between state and State