TREASON. 



691 



sovereign. Hence in England to compass the death of 

 the occupant of the throne, as the lawyers express it, 

 is an act of treason. In the United States the sov- 

 ereignty resides in the public as a community, and an 

 act of treason is necessarily one against the entire 

 community. To this idea the Constitution of the 

 United States is conformed, since it declares that 

 tnason against the United States shall consist only in 

 levying war against them, or in adhering to their ene- 

 mies, giving them aid and comfort. It is possible for 

 a single person to do all that need be done to take the 

 life of the personal sovereign, but to antagonize the 

 government of a community implies means of a very 

 different nature. 



The definition given to treason, as used in the Con- 

 stitution, mid accepted as authoritative, is that it im- 

 plies the assembling of a body of men for the purpose 

 of overturning or resisting the government by force, 

 and the perliinnaiicc of some act looking to that end, 

 although such act need riot amount to a collision of 

 arms. This definition is in harmony with the spirit of 

 popular institutions, for it accords with the popular 

 right to deliberate together and plan changes of the 

 government or of its policies, general or particular, so 

 lone as force is not to be the instrument for the accom- 

 plishment of that purpose. That which the whole 

 people have a right to accomplish can be undertaken 

 by any limited portion of the whole number if force is 

 not resorted to. An assembly for deliberative pur- 

 alotie is not an act ol war. lor though war may 

 be the product of deliberation, it represents a di.-tinct 

 step beyond that of deliberation.. The act of war is 

 recognized as a corporate act in which more than one 

 must be engaged, although the minimum number has 

 not been agreed upon, but a< cording to the judicial in- 

 terpretation a maximum is not nece.-sary that could be 

 supposed sufficient to accomplish tin 1 end intended. 



The assembly, in order to fall under the censure of 

 the law. inu.-t be to act rather than to deliberate, and 

 that action must be directed against the authority of 

 the government, using force u its intended instrument. 



To resist a subordinate odici r of a government is not 

 that kind of resistance thr.l is contemplated by t ; 

 stitution, miles* an intention accompanies it to meet the 

 whole force ol the government, should it be brought 

 into exercise. An instance of this class appears in the 

 case of the Whiskey relation in Pennsylvania, where 

 fi .!< was din tied avain.it the judicial power of the 

 government. 



According to the European system, from which our 

 own is derived, the < -fleet ol treason upon an individual 

 convicted of it is to deprive snch person of all civil and 

 political right in addition to di privation of life. Ilis 

 capacity both of holding property and of transmitting 

 it to others by descent is taken away. This result 

 might not only ensue as the consequence of conviction 

 of such crime, but might be produced by an act of leg- 

 islation. The Constitution of the United States lire- 

 eludes this consequence and leaves the civil conse- 

 quences of trc'.-on to be applied through a conviction 

 by the judicial au: Unity. The laws of the United 

 go a step f.irlliir and limit these civil con- 

 sei|iiences to the iji'c of the person convicted as it re- 

 gards the disposition of property at death. 



In IT'.M) the crime of treason was defined by Con- 

 gress in harmony with the provision of the Constitu- 

 tion. No other legislation on (hat crime appears to 

 have taken place until the rebtllii.n of 1801, which 

 called forth in the follow -ing year provisions of law of a 

 more definite character than had previously existed. 



The history of the Cnited States presents some strik- 

 ing iMtftDCM of treasonable conduct. The treason of 

 'Jen. Arnold during the Revolutionary war was an im- 

 portant military fact, but gave rise to no legislative or 

 judicial consequences. The most notable event of 

 that class occurring in the first half of the century of 

 our national existence was the attempted invasion of 

 Mexico by a force raised to carry out the plans of 



Aaron Burr, while the last half of that century is 

 signalized by the attempt of several States of the 

 Union to secede therefrom. The former was an effort 

 to take advantage of the divergence of interests 

 between the Atlantic States and those bordering on 

 the Mississippi .River, while the latter instance was an 

 | effort that arose from differences of interests and senti- 

 ment between States bordering on the Atlantic. Kcn- 

 tu-ky and Tennessee were the first among the group 

 of States that depend upon the great waterway af- 

 forded by the Mississippi River, which before the days 

 of railroads was the only avenue of commerce upon 

 which the vast' region embracing the interior of this 

 continent could rely where not touching on the Great 

 Lakes. The soil and jurisdiction of Kentucky were 

 claimed by Virginia, and those of Tennessee by North 

 Carolina. The people of these colonies claimed their 

 independence of those States, and persisted in these 

 clajms until time and immigration established their 

 claims. This conflict of jurisdiction sowed the seeds 

 of discontent and alienated the interests and affections 

 of the respective peoples. The Atlantic States were 

 connected together by common interests of navigation 

 in which the Westein States did not participate, while 

 the commercial advantages afforded by the Mississippi 

 River appeared to be disconnected from those affecting 

 the Atjantic States. While the west bank of the Mis- 

 sissippi was controlled by France, then under the au- 

 thority of Napoleon, Mexico and Florida, held by the 

 Spanish, lay at the outlet of that river. The purchase 

 of Louisiana in part satisfied the demands of the peo- 

 ple of the valley of the Mississippi, but Spain desired 

 still to hold the advantages of the trade oi that river. 

 Taking advantage of this disturbed condition of popu- 

 lar feeling and interest and of the unsettled policy of 

 the Western States, liurr devised a scheme of taking 

 forcible possession of the Spanish territories. Many 

 believed that his plan was to Iring about disunion as 

 an ultimate consequence of his bold enterprise, and 

 tliis impression bail doubtless much to do with the ac- 

 tivity that counk'racted his plans. That. Burr appealed 

 to the discontent of the people of the West and ex- 

 cited among them a desire to advance their local inter- 

 ests by a striking adventure although in disregard of 

 their allegiance to the Union, may be assumed. Places 

 Mbling troops and storing military supplies were 

 established, and men and supplies collected, but the 

 vigilance of the government prevented such secrecy 

 and deliberate preparation as was necessary for the. 

 consummation of his plans. Burr hastily embarked 

 with a small body of men to descend the Mississippi, 

 hoping to increase his force as he advanced. In this 

 he was disappointed, as the enterprise was broken up 

 by the action of the government before he reached 

 New Orleans, and he sought to escape but was cap- 

 tured and made a prisoner in Alabama. Taken to 

 Richmond, lie was there indicted, with several of his 

 associates, for treason and misdemeanor. His trial 

 resulted in his acquittal of both offem-< s. 



If what Burr intended had been consummated it 

 would have been an act of war against a friendly 

 power, but such an act would not necessarily involve 

 treason against the United States. Assembling troops 

 within the United States for such a purpose, although 

 contrary to its laws, would not necessarily imply that 

 those troops were intended to come into collision with 

 the civil or military powerof the United States. Such 

 a collision might occur, and in fact was likely to occur, 

 but it would only be when the expeditionary force was 

 confronted by the authority of the United States that 

 the intention directing it could be brought to a test. 

 The intention that constitutes treason a crime must be 

 evidenced by some overt act, and such act could only 

 appear in the presence of some exercise of governmental 

 authority adverse to the plans of the expedition. 

 Had its direct object been to oppose force to the au- 

 thority of the government a different case would have 

 existed, but such an intention was not to be presumed 



