The daily phoenix. [volume] (Columbia, S.C.) 1865-1878, 1867-06-07
TREASON.

Forty or fifty Journals having seen
fit to say that we have assumed or
asserted that there was no funda-
mental difference between the late
Southern rebellion and the American
Revolution, we are moved to remind
them that we consider the two as
vide asunder as the poles-the one
struggle for liberty, the other on
effort to diffuse and perpetuate slave
ry. If this is not difference, we
know not what could be. But they
were alike In this, 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
Grafton, as follows:
'"The battle of Bunker Hill was
attended with the most important
effects beyond its immediate result as
military engagement. 1t created
at once state of open, public war.
There could now be no longer ques-
tion of proceeding against indivi-
dnals, as guilty of treason or rebel
lion. That fearful crisis was past.
The appeal now lay to the sword; and
the only question was, whether the
spirit and the resources of the peo-
pie would hold out till the 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 Federal Constitution
defines treason otherwise than as
above. But do you fancy Mr.. Web
ster ignorant of that definition? Yet
; do you observe how broadly he takes
his ground, rs if it were universal
and incontrovertible?
Now let us look at the constitu-
tional provision:
"Treason against the United States
shall consist only in levying war
against them, or in adhering to their
enemies, giving them aid and com
fort"
Here is plain effort to so define
treason as to preclude all constructive
or artificial treasons--to confine it
within narrower limits than those
prescribed by the common law. Evi-
IDENTIFY, no one dreamed of impli-
eating n large class who were not
traitors by British law.
Who, then, are traitors by the
torpaS Of fha TTa,1 aroJ
Not all who levy war against our
country; for the British ald 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, vet are
not held guilty of treason. Nor yet
al that owe allegiance to our Govern
ment; for when the British, in 1918,
undertook to treat as traitors the
Irishmen fighting against them, Gen.
Scott resisted, with the full approval
OF our Government and people, and
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 seces-
s1onlsts as traitors. But when the
progress of events had created what
Mr. Webster terms "open, public
war, and we had recognized the fact
by. exchanging prisoners, and even
privateersmen, the case was brayely
altered. "There could now be no
longer question of proceeding
against individuals as guilty of trea.
son or rebellion. So says Mr.. Web
ster; AMI we do not believe an Anne
rican jury could be fairly selected in
any State to reverse his Judgment.
Ne,o York Tribune.