that now waged, this class is supposed to sympathize with the rebellion rather than with the Government. There can be no such thing as neutrality in a rebellion. This term is applicable only to foreign powers. Such persons, so long as they commit no hostile act, and confine themselves to their private avocations, are not to be molested by the military forces, nor is their property to be seized, except as a military requisitions, and their houses to billets for soldiers' quarters, and to appropriation for other temporary military uses. Subject to these impositions, the noncombatant inhabitants of a district of country militarily occupied by one of the belligerent are entitled to the military protection of the occupying forces; but, while entitled to such protection, they incur very serious obligations-obligations differing in some respects from those of civil allegiance, but equally binding. For example, those who rise in arms against the occupying army, or against the authority established by the same, are war rebels, or military traitors, and incur the penalty of death. They are not entitled to be considered as prisoners of war when captured. Their property is subject to military seizure and military confiscation. Military treason of this kind is broadly distinguished from the treason defined in constitutional and statutory laws, and made punishable by the civil courts. Military treason is a military offense, punishable by the common law of war. Again, persons belonging to such occupied territory, and within the military lines of the occupying power, without proper authority. To do so, the party not only forfeits all claim to protection, but subjects himself or herself to be punished either as a spy or a military traitor, according to the character of the particular offence. Our treatment of such offenses and such offenders has hitherto been altogether too lenient. A more strict enforcement of the laws of war in this respect is recommended. Such offenders should be made to understand the penalties they incur, and to know that these penalties will be rigidly enforced. Third. Those who are openly and avowedly hostile to the occupying army, but who do not bear arms against such forces; in other words, while claiming to be non-combatants, they repudiate the obligations tacitly or impliedly incurred by the other inhabitants of the occupied territory. Such persons not only incur all the obligations imposed upon other non-combatant inhabitants of the same territory, and are liable to the same punishment for offenses committed, but they may be treated as prisoners of war, and be subjected to the rigors of confinement or to expulsion as combatant enemies. I am of opinion that such persons should not, as a general rule, be permitted to go at large within our lines. To force those capable of bearing arms to go within the lines of the enemy adds to his effective forces; to place them in confinement will require guards for their safe keeping, and this necessarily diminishes our active forces in the field. You must determine in each particular case which course will be most advantageous. We have suffered very severely from this class, and it is time that the laws of war should be more rigorously enforced against them. A broad line of distinction must be drawn between friends and enemies, between the loyal and the disloyal.

The foregoing remarks have reference only to military status and to military offenses under the laws of war. They are not applicable to civil offenses under the Constitution and general laws of the land. The laws and usages of civilized war must be your gulden the treatment of all classes of persons of the country in which your army may operate, or which it may occupy; and you will be permitted to decide for yourself