New-York tribune., 1908-11-15

both parties exceeded. in the tenderness and the
care which they gave to the prisoners OF the
other, the requirements of the Hague convention
This great memorial which dedicate to-day,
the condition Of things which 1t records and
their contrast with present conditions properly
call to mind the humane advance which has
been made even in cruel a thing as war.
It should be said, however that IN the time
of the Revolution and in the days of these
prison ships the rights of the prisoners of war
were by no means clearly dehned, ana me nor
rors to which those whose memory we celebrate
to-day were subjected could find parallel In
other wars of the same period. But the Enghsh
commanders, and still more our own general
washington, anxious to recognize and
rarry out far possible the principles
have already laid down governing the rights or
prisoners of war while III captivity. The dltfl-
Guilty not in the Iheoretc statement OF the
obligations of the captor, but IN their practlcaI
recognition and observance.
In the arrangements for the exchange of pris-
oners between General Washington and the
British commander soldiers Svere exchanged Tor
soldiers private citizens for private citizens and
sailors for sailors. To the EnglSh ana the
American forces the soldier was mGcl more
valuable than the sailor It cost the Englishman
far more to bring over soldiers and keep them
in America than it did sailors, and Ii was much
more difficult for, the American authorities 70
secure soldiers Of the line than 1t was TO secure
sailors, and especially those not sailors IN the
employ Of the Continental Congress- but merely
in private employ upon vessels engaged as pm
yateersnen under letters of marque and reprisal,
who constituted the great majority of American
eaiIors in the war There was very little of the
American navy except so far as it was conStl-
tuted by privateeTsmen, and it was easier among
an adventurous people TO secure the employment
of sailors upon privateersmen, VINO generally
shared in the proceeds of prizes. than it was to
obtain enlisted men in the army; hence almost
ali the exchanges were of British soldiers on the
one hand and soldiers of the Continental line or
the state militia the other. While they were
detained as prisoners of war, they were detained
on land in prisons where, while their fate was
hv no means a comfortable one, they were not
subjected to the cruelties of the prison SHIPS
Men who were detained the prison ships
were generally those who had been captured by
British vessels of war from the decks Of Amer
lean privateersmen. There were q great many
British sailors captured by American privateers-
men and had these captives been turned over
to the Continental Congress for detention they
would have constituted a source from which
exchanges might have been regularly effected,
and the men detained on the prison ships could
thus have been set at liberty. But the American
privateersmen took no pains in this matter
their British prisoners TO engage themselves as
American sailors in new privateering enterprises.
extensive enough TO capture prisoners TO be
exchanged in any number, so that the inmates
Of the prison ships had little opportunity for
obtaining liberty through exchange.
CHARGE AGAINST WASHINGTON.
I stop here to allude to a charge made bv the
British against Washington and the American
authorities in order to relieve themselves from
responsibility for the awful loss of life occurring
IN their prison hulks. They say as Is true, that
the British authorities offered TO exchange the
prisoners detained in the prison huzs for British
soldiers held by the American forces in AIleri-
can prisons, and that this offer declined.
II declined by Washington first the
ground that he had no authority over naval
prisoners. Later on it appears that such an
exchange might have been made by Washington
mad he decided to do so, but his position evl-
IDENTIFY was that he could not afford, in the in
terests of the cause for which he fighting.
to aid the British by giving back to them sea
soned soldiers OF the line to reinforce their army
in America in exchange for men who had never
had experience as soldiers at all and who were
nothing but the sailors of privateersmen. 1t
is true that by doing he would have been
ena bled to save the sufferings Of his own coun-
trymen who detained in the prison hulks,
and this shows clearly tha- 1he rights of those !
whose memory We here recall with gratitude !
were sacrificed to meet the eXigeDcics Of the /
country in the critical hour Of her birth. But !
il was balancing Of Washington's obligations !
and he felt it TO be higher duty TO maintain /
that course which would weaken the enemy and /
drive him TO peace, than to relieve tho
OF. those of his unfortunate country T,
men, however terribly detained upon prison ;
hulks. We must justify Washington in this /
conclusion, just exactly we must justify Grant !
in refusing the exchange Of prisoners at time /
in August 1864, when the sufferIngs OF Ander- !
sonville were held up before him as reason !
for making such an exchange. But 1t was a /
critical moment in the history OF the war, and ,
ne knew better Ihan any one else could now
much Of strength he was Withholding from the /
rebel army by refusing TO give back TO them
the men who would fill UP their ranks from
Northern prisons.
What should be emphasized, however is that
the refusal Of Washington and the American
not the slightest justification for the neglect
and cruelty with which the prisoners Of war
upon the prison hulks We're treated, and that !
mere failure to act and to accept
the proposal OF the British, made in their own
interest and for the betterrnent Of their army. !
was not the slightest excuse for their failure
to heed his complaints and warnings against
the character OF the treatment 10 which they
were subjecting those confined in the prison
ships.
1 may here notice one circumstance referred