Year: 1867

Apropos of the arrival Of Mr.. DAVIS at
Richmond, to answer his recognizanee,
the Radical papers are beginning to dis
cover that it win not pay them politically
to prosecute him. The st. Louis Demo-
crat Of laie date says:


What issue is there to try? Not the
question whether Davis participated in a
rebellion against the United States gov
ernment. That will be admitted. If he
is to be tried at all, the question must be
this, whether a rebellion against the
United States is a criminal act. Can this
government afford to try that question
A trial implies doubt. Can We AFFORD
TO acknowledge that there is q reasonable
doubt whether treason is unlawful? a
trial must end in a decision by some tri-
bunal. What tribunal in the land can
be asked to decide the issue upon which
millions of men have fought? Either
the war settled nothing, or it settled that
no State had a right to secede, and that
no citizen had 8 right to take up arms
agajust the government. II the war did
not settle these questions, how can
court settle them If the war did not
settle these questions, what reason Is





discussion and deliberation


Jefferson Davis, if tried at all, must be
tried bv a Jury impaneled in Virginia.
Can there be found in Virginia twelve
men who have no opinion IN regard TO
the guilt or innocence Of the prisoner
II he is tried before jury VINO are known
to believe that treason is a crime, VINO
that does not believe it crime VIII be
convinced? ? If he is tried before jury
who are known to believe that treason Is
NOT a crime, will their acquittal estaDilsh
the fact that the rebellion was JustlnaOle
If he is tried before E jury who are known
tn he divided in opinion, Will tneir dlsa-
eyrasrnent leave it doubtful whether the
1srtyred soldiers who fell before Rlch-
mOnd were noble patriots or wicked IN
vaders?


There ought to be, say some, solemn
decision by United States court, that
rsbeEIion is treason and is a crime. If we
are sure of such a decision when the
court opeus the case, will the trial be less
than q farce2 IL we are not sure of such
\ decision, have we the right to stake the
honor of the heroic dead upon the doubt
flI issue? II solemn decision by the
oo1rt that rebellion is q crime would add
ANYTHING TO the verdict of the war, then
. decision that rebellion is not crime
wosId reverse the verdict OF the war.
Rut what loval man would accept such a
decision as proof that the government
was in the wrong, and that rebellion was
lawful? And If loyal men would not
accept an adverse decision as final, how
can we expect those who dispute the YER
dict Of the war to accept the decision OF
a loyal court?


The Democrat forgets that political tri-
ais and convictions was one of the means
suggested by its party to make treason
and traitors Odious." 1t now has grave
doubts whether this will answer. The
Democrat has discovered the exact truth
when it announces that the verdict of a
court viii! decide nothing and change no
ones opinion relative to the criminality
Of secession. No person suPposes, for
one moment, that UNDERwooD's court,
or any other court, is mere enlightened
with regard to political questions than
the sages and founders Of the COnstitu-
ton, who differed in opinion on this fun
dsmental question. Nor does any one
imagine that secession was any more or
less treason because q jury at Richmond
shall either acquit or convict Mr.. DAVIS.
The late elections are beginning to be
felt in teaching Radical editors q modl-
cum Of common sense.