The Conservative. (M'connelsville, Ohio) 1866-1871, 1867-06-06
From the New York Tribuns.l
Treason IN CiYn war.

uOWh WI OIBuhlNSN "hN AOhhiiN"UiO ~
bellion, proceed to try and punish it's
defeated adversaries as traitors2
The question is readily answered in
the affirmative by ignorance and pas.
sion-perhaps also by wisdom and
calm judgement. Let us inquire and
consider.
Unquestionably q Government may
refuse from the outset to recognized its
domestic foes as belligerents, engaged
IN lawful war. 1t may say to them,
as Macmillan did to his Mexican adj
versaries: "You are not warriors, but
banditti, brigands, robbers-whom, if
captured by my armies, [ shall !reat
as arrested felons. hut this is a two
edged sword, as Max. is very likely to
discover. The Government which
treats its enemies as felons must ex.
pect to have its adberents so treated
by those adversaries-to have It's SOL
dlers shot or hung when captured, if it
shoots and hangs those whom it cap
lures. Whatever rule it acts upon
will surely work both ways.
On the main question, the doctrine
generally hold by American statesmen
and publicists prior to 1860, will be
found succinetly set forth by Daniel
Webster, in his address on laying the
corner stone ofBunker Hill Monument
June Is, 1929, wherein he says of
the consequences OF that memorable
combat.
THE battle Of Bunker Hill was at
tended with the most important effects
beyond its immediate result RS n mill
tary engagement. 1t created at once
a state of open, public war. There
could noV be no longer a question Of
proceeding against individuals, as guilty
Of treason or rebellion. That feSrful
crisis was past. The appeal nov lay
to the sword; and tho only question
was, whether the spirit and resources
OF the people would hold out till
the object should be accomplished"
Bear in mind that our fathers had
not even declared their independence
on the 18th of Juno. 1775, when they
fought at Bunker Kill nay, they hal
not detinltively resolved on separation
from ths mother country. In She eye
of British law and Of the law Of M.
tons, for that matter-thev were sim
ply rebels, assisting the authority and
army oftheir legitimate king. Yet
Mr.. Webster holds that the naked fact
that they resisted IN battle array, un-
der the command Of their constituted
local authorities, precluded any civil
proceedings against them as "individu-
ais guilty o%ftreason or rebellion.
Of course, Mr.. Webster did not or
iginate this doctrine. lie was not the
man TO do the like Of that. He found
it lnterfused throughout our entire
Revolutionary history and literature.
Thus Chief Justice Marshall, in his
Life OF Washington, relates that. when
General Gage, commanding the Kings
forces in Boston. arrested several en-
inent Wing civilians and lodged them
in jail. along with our captured officers
and soldiers, to be dealt with as trai.
tors, Washington demonstrated every
seriously against this uniustihable
measures (says MarshalD, while Gen
cral Gage regarded the Americans
merely as rebels, and treated them as
ifthe great national resistance they
were making on principal was TO be
viewed as tho act of a few daring and
turbuient individuals," and, as such,
wrote Gage: "prisoners whose lives
arc, by the laws of the land, destined
to the cord" Washington at once
instituted measures for retaliation.
should this violation of public law and
ofthe laws Of war be carried into effect
and thereby brought the British Gen
eral to a recognition OF the Just princi-
pies Of civilized warfare, rs %enunciatad
by Vattel and other writer's on public
law.
James Otis the Wyclif or John Huss
of u Revolution, Alexander Hamil.
ton Tin the FederdliSO, and all our Rev.
dictionary publicists Of any authority.
refer to and quote from Vattel's Law
OF Nations as setting forth the Judge
ment Of the civilized world in aecor
dance with the doctrines of Webster
and Washington above cited .-Vattel
in his chapter on Civil War. says:
"But what conduct shall the sove
: reign observe toward the insurgents
answer, in general, such conduct n
shall at the Same tImo be the mos
%consonant to Justice and the most sal
utary to the State. \ \ \ ;
Subjects who rise against the prince
without cause, deserve severe punish
ment; yet, ever in this case, on accoun
ofthe number Of the delinouents
clemency becomes a duty In tho sove
reign" 4 4 II y
A civil war breaks tho bonds of socic
ty and government, or, at least sus
ponds their force and effect; it produce
in the nation two independent parties
3 parties, who consider each other a
euemies and acknowledge no conmmol
Judge. Those two parties, therefore
must necessarily be considered n
] hencefortoard constituting, at least 70
a time, two seperate bodies two distiuC