The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1876-01-20

been o law OF war that the obligation OF
a prisoner to observe his parole depends
upon the assent of bis own Government;
but, on the contrary, the right of prisoner
to obtain bis release from captivity by giving
bis parole OF honor not TO serve against nls
captors until exchanged or other wise released
is derived from the fact that By bis captivity
he is pliced beyond the protection OF his
Government, and therefore has the right 10
provide for his own safety by giving the re-
quiste pledge. and all civilized nations re-.
cognize the binding force of that pledge or
parole.
The rule is laid down by Vattel, PIP. Ala
and 4l5, as follows:
s'IudlviduaIs, whether belonging to the army or
not who happen singY to fall IN win Inc snT
left to their own discretion. and may SO 1ar as con
Germs their own persons 90 everytn'nng Se and
the troops under his command. If, therefore, Ia
consequence Of the situation in which they are IN
hey make promise, Wbeh can
lie within the sphere of private
valid and obligatory, as being mace VIII reeIv
fs soyereign's orders nor enjoy his protection ne
resumes his natural rights and Is TO provide f2r ms
nower Hence. If that individual has promised
sum for his ran som, the sovereign, so 1ar irolh
having the oS,re 70 to a h f0 m
l. ha o1nd nf he State requires that faith should
be kept on such occasions, and that subjects SHOULD
have this mode OF saving their lives Oh RECOVERING
their liberty. , -, bts ooro,a
"Thus. prisoner who is released on ms parole parole
is bound to observe with scr.pnon, snc nb.
seryance of his engagement Ior nau NOT the
thus given his parole he would not have been re-
leased"
The same doctrine is laid down by public.
lists generally.
The question of exchange of prisoners is
q matter for agreement between the 'oppos.
ing powers, but the question Of the parole
is not. The paroles stipulated for in the
cartel of July, 1862, were paroles with a
view to subsequent exchange, and the stipu-
lation did not create the right Of prisoner
Of war 10 be released from captivity on his
parole; that existed prior TO and independ.
ent OF the cartel. 1t existed by virtue of q
" higher law" Vt may be permitted to use
a phrase so much in vogue in former times
among those who now attach so much i'm.
portance to unwayering fidelity to the Con-
stitution, in their view Of i'll than an order
from the Federal Secretary Of Wharf.-The
law of Self.preservation. If | bad found
myself at any time during the war prison.
er in the hands Of the euemr, about to be
dragged to o northern prison, ri here i am
sure confinement for very short time
would have killed ne, or run me mad, and
my captors had been humane enough to re-
lease me on my parole Of honor not TO serve
again until exchanged, am sure | would
have thought my Government more barba.
rous than the enemy if IL had re-
qured of me violation of my parole
and return to duty without exchange;
but feel confident no such dishonor would
ever have been required of me by that Gov
eminent, for do know that the paroles of
some of my own mer, captured at Williams.
burg on the 5th Of May, 1862, n ore than
two months before the cartel was adopted,
and for special reasons paroied within week
of their capture, were respected, and they
were regularly exchanged. Mr.. Stanton, in
issuing the order Of the Sd Of July, 1868, vic.
lated the laws Of civilized warfare, and the
statement contained therein that the Con.
federate Government &c the enemy") bad
pursued the same course was mere preteXs
10 give color TO his own understandable act.
But for that order all the prisoners captured
by US at Gettysburg, amounting to fully
5000. would have been paroled, and, in fact,
the proper staff officers were proceeding to
parole them, and had actually parolCd and
released large number of them, when news
came of the order referred to. Why did Mr..
Stanton object to the paroling Of those
prisoners? and why did he prefer that
they should he confined in prisons IN
the South-"prison pens" as northern
Republicans are pleased to call them
rather than that they should be sent to their
own homes on plrclc, there to remain in
comfort until duly exchanged, if it was not
to e,nbarrass the Confederate Government
with the custody and support of them re-
CARELESS Of any consideration for their health
or their lives? If be did not think proper
TO exchange Confederate PRISONERS III bis
bands for them he could have refused 10 80
so, and certainlv their presence nj tacir own
homes could have done no BARN TO his cause;
most a>surtuiy not mere than their con.
fiu.meDt in prison, IN climate To Whlcn
they we're unaccuStomed. III Tue RUE as
serted In his order is among the laws aud
usages Of war, then it must follow that II
General Lee bad not been able 10 guard or
feed the prisoners Ia his hands he you'd
have had the right 10 resort 10 that dread
alternative to which the first Napoleon re-
sorted in Asia when he found the paroles
granted by him not respected, and destroy
the prisoners in his hands. If any OF the
prisoners brought from Gettysburg, or sub
.stuueutly captured, lost their lives 1T Ander-
sonville, or any other southern prison, is it
not palpabe that the responsibility for their
deaths rested on Edwin NJ. Stanton!
With these remarks Isnbjoin the letters
and the order referred 10. J. \. EARLY.
ALEXANDRIA, April 3, 1868.
Ny Dear Captair,-Yours of the I'd has been re-
ceved. and In reply beg leave TO say that have
no pies of the letc-s aud orders referred to- but
Ihaye an entry in my journal of the date of the OH
Of January, 1865 whilst headquarters were at
Montgomery, Ia. The entry is substantially as
follows LII pursuance OF orders addressed let
ter to General Winder, requesting him TO turn over
master for he purpose of taking out Sub-terrd
shells and tOrpedoes from the cuts In the West
Point aud Atlanta railroad. Shortly afterwards
received from General Winder reply, stating that
not only violate the orders Of the War Department,
but would be in conrayenuon or the laws and
usape5 Of war;" ...# '.-'ef
have no objection to your using this inforna-
ton On such occasions and terms as you may deem
proper for the vindcation of your father, bur
would suggest this consideration: that public use
In the present heated and embittered condition OF
goliical affairs would result In no practical use,
ard might possibly create unnecessary prejudice
against those now living and TO southern Interests
IsignedI GEORGE W. BRENT.
sABoT HILL, December 20, 1875.
Mr. n. ). Uinder, Baltimore:
Dear Sfr.-Your letter reached me some two
weeks sinCe and have been prevented by serious
iudisposition from giving it an earlier reply.
take Measure In rendering my emphatic teSI-
monv to relieve the character and reputation Of
your father, the late General John ii. Winder, from
the unjust aSpersions that have bsen cast upon Them
in connection with the treatment OF the Federal
prisoners under his charge during our late civil