New-York tribune., 1908-11-15

+ations Of the English commanders in chief, or
10 the set purposes Of any one in authority nav
ing to do with the fate Of the unfortunate men
whose bravery ana sclf-sacrifice this monument
records Such a charge would make the British
commanders human monsters. The conditions
were the result Of neglect not design. Let Us
review shortly the history of the prisoners on
board the hulks of the Jersey and others IN order
understand how results SO reVoitlng 10 every
iDstinCt Of human nature could have come about
Ia the treatment of the prisoners taken from
-he American forces by the British the British
commanders found themselves much embar-
raSsed Technically and actually, every pTis-
oner taken was guilty OF treason and liable TO
prosecution for capital offence in the courts Of
the land The British. government was quite
SudisDosed. as was natural TO recognize the bel
1igerency OF the American forces or TO treat
those who we're captured as prisoners OF war.
They We're afraid Of committing themselves IN
some way TO a recognition OF the existence of n
war between two independent powers, ana Yet
they were loath to treat all prisoners captured
as punishable by death. The detention Of priS-
oners without proceeding against them for trea-
son in the regular courts made IL possible for
friends OF the prisoners 10 apply for writs Of
h4beas corpus and thus cmbaTass the COM
randing officers. Accordingly, Lord North.
George IITs Prime Minister. secured the passage
of an act Of Parliament whereby in the sup
preston Of the rebellion OF his majesty's sub
lects in America persons captured IN arms
might be detained without an examination into
1he legality of their detention under the process
of the writ Of nabeaS corpus. and in this way
-here was established quasi status of prison
ers of war as between the British forces and the
American forces Indeed. The status had been
The personal arrangement between commanding
officers of the opposing forces.
There was nothing in the peculiar relations
between government and the forces Of ITS re-
;seIliOuS subjects. therefore. which should have
differentiated the treatment OF the captlves IN
such q way from tnat Nnlcn ougnl 10 OpltIl
under the rules OF international law in the case
Of war between independent nations. The same
embarrassing questions arose in our Civil
War, and solved in much the same way.
However lOath we were to recognize the con
federation internationally an independent
ER.lf Ffefg MAJ
il OF the greatest wars OF modern times,
required for numanity'S sake that all the rules
applicable to the conduct Of war between two
Independent nations should be observed IN the
Mar OF the Rebellion; and il is not too much To
say that in the Mar OF the Rebellion there was
substantially the same relation as that between
Great Britain and the forces OF the Continental
Congress.
MODERN TREATMENT HUMANE
The lot of 4 prisoner Of war at all times and
under all circumstances is one OF constant ana
ineFitabie haiGshlIr IN ancient times lle PTS
oner OF war became the save OF ms cailtoI-
The captured Roman forfeited his citizenship,
which was only partly revived by the event OF
TeCapture. IN tne Middle Ages ana, llluteu,
down to the advent of Napoleon, death was per-
haps the least of the horrors which were aSSO-
ciated with the status Of prisoner Of war. Sepa-
rated from his family and friends, deprived by
the exigeGcy of capture Of the cOmpanionship Of
tent mates and comrades; surrounded. not only
by strangers, but by enemies, a captive without
rights which his captor was bound TO respect.
il is Impossible 10 conceive Of more hopeless.
distressing anO NedEJDleahlIS SITUATION.
In relatively recent times the lot Of the pris-
oner Of has been made the subject OF anne
Iteration, in cartels, treaties and conventions
which define the rights of the captured and the
duties of the captor. The personal safety of the
prisoner of war is secured, his personal posses
4sions and belongings ale protected from capture
and spoation and offences against him are rig
orously punished. The measures Of restraint to
which captor may resort for the detention OF
prisoners cannot now take the character Of puni-
tive Imprisonment.
II must be a source of qualification to all OF
10 learn the provisions Of the Hague conYen-
lion with reference TO the rights Of prisoners
Of they are now understood by all the
-SignatOry powers 10 that convention and to see
that it is the duty OF the capturing forces to
make ample provision for the prisoners Of
war as for their still more en-
phatic evidence of the progress that is made.
and earnest Of what may expect hereafter,
is TO be found IN the treatment Of prisoners Of
war IN the late Russian-Japanese conflict, when