The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-05-28
Treason In Civil War.

FTon The Tribune
Can Government which, after long and
arduous struggle, has put down an organized
and formidable Rebellion, proceed to try and
punish its defeated adversaries as traitors
This question is readily answered in the
affirmative by ignorance and passion--perhaps
also by wisdom and calm judgment. Let us
inquire ana consider.
UnqueS Sionably, Government may refuse
from the outset. to recognize its domestic foes
as belligerents, engaged in lawful war. 1t may
say to them, as Maximilian did to his Mexican
adversaries-"You are not warriors, but ban
ditti-brigands, robbers-whom, if captured
by my armies, l shall treat as arrested felons."
But this is two edged sword, as Max. is very
likely to discover. The Government which
treats its enemies felons must expect to
have its adherents so treated by those adver-
saries-to have its 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 gene
rally held by American statesmen and pub
icists prior to 1860, will be succinctly set
forth by Daniel Webster in his address on
laying the cornerstone of Bunker Hill Monu-
ment Dune II, 1920, wherein he says of the
"The battle ofBunker Hill was attended with
the most important effects beyond its imme-
diate result as a military engagement. 1t
There could now be no longer q question OF
proceeding against individuals as guilty of
treason or rebellion. 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 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 June, 1775, when they fought at Bunker
Hill; nay, they had not definitively resolved
on separation from the mother country. In
the eye of British law-and of the law of
nations for that matter-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 authorities, precluded any civil proceed
ings against them as 'individuals guilty of
treason or rebellion"
OF course, Mr.. Webster did not originate
this doctrine. He was not the man to do the
like of that. He found it interfused through
out our entire Revolutionary history and lite
rature. Thus, Chief Justice Marshall, in his
"Life of Washington" relates that, when
General Gage, commanding the kings forces
in Boston, arrested several eminent Whig
civilians and lodged them in jail, along with
our captured officers and soldiers, to be dealt
WIFI dS IIdllOI5j w dSulIStOh AOhAOh9ei"NON
''very seriously against this unjustihable mea-
sure" (says MarshalD; while General Gage
regarded the Americans merely as rebels,
and treated them as if the great national resist
ance they were making on principle was to be
viewed as the act of a few daring and turbulent
individualS," and, as such, wrote Gage, ''pri-
soners whose lives are, by the laws OF the
land destined to the cord" Washington at
once instituted measures for retaliation,
should this violation of public law and of the
laws Of war be carried into effect, and thereby
| brought the British General to a recognition
| OF the just principles of civilized warfare, as
| enunciated by Vattel and other writers on
| public law.
James Otis, the Wyclif or John Huss of our
| Revolution, Alexander Hamilton (in the Fede-
| ralist), and all our Revolutionary publicists of
any authority, refer to and quote from Vattels
claw Of Nations'' as setting forth the judg-
ment of the civilized world in accordance with
the doctrines of Webster and Washington
above cited. Vattel, in his chapter on "Civil
| War;" says-
"But what conduct shall the sovereign OBJ
serve towards the insurgents? l answer, In
general, such conduct as shall at the same time
be the most consonant to justice, and the most
sanitary TO the State. SupJecls VINO rise
against their prince without cause deserve
severe punishment: yet, even IN Inls case, on
geeottat Of the number ofthe deIinQuents, clemency
war breaks the bonds of society and govern
| meht, or, at least, suspends their force ana
eueeli IL produces in the nation two tnde-
PenuvJnt paItles who consider each other as
These two parties therefore, must necessarily