The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1808-03-01
TIE ENQUIRER.
RICHMOND, MARCH i, 1893.
FOR THE ENQUIRER.
TO THE PUBLIC.

UPoN the Union of the states denends
their political independence. Upon the ,,rc
servation OF the Constitution, depends the
civil liberty OF the people. The latter
conceive 20 be in danger On the 1874 INST.
4 bill was under discussion before the Senate
OF the y. 5. which, il passed, as reported by
the committee, viii be a direct violation OF
the constitution, In one OF its fundamental ar
ticies. ! alIude to the bill for the punish
ment of treason and other offences against
The u States. "a
That the advocates This bill, do not sup
pose, that they are ercroaching on ground
within the paie ofthe constitution, L readily
admit; but they are doing so in fact, is a
position of which the, truth seems TO be de-
Rlonstrable The proposal during the last
session TO suspend The privilege of he Hd6eas
Corpus, loses all its Importance when COM
pared with this measure
The constitution, which gave being 90 the
Congress of the y. States, prescribed to the
body thus created the limits within which it
should move, and clearly described the pow
ers whichit might ,egiGmatey Exercise
In speaking Of crimes against the u. States,
its Language IS explicit. The 8thsect OF the
LIST art. authorises Congress to"d fine and
Punish piracies and felonies on the II oh
seas, and offences against the law of nations"
Under this section, therefore Congress NAV
say what acts shall constitute an offence
within the meaning of this provision, and de-
clare what the punishment shall be
But in skeaking Of treason, the terms u
sed by the constitution are essentially differ
ent " Congress shall have power to declare
the Punishment of treason"-see art 3, sect.
) he power To define what treason shall
be IS no, given. ., The reason is obvious The
dehrfition Sgiven by. the consti ution itself ::
" Treason agaInst the u. States shall consist
" only in levying WAL against them or in ad
" herinS to their enemies, giving them aid
g and comfort Congress therefore cannot
oJ Jaw do mo- than TO declare The funidh-
ment OF treason. If they undertake to say
what shall constitute treason. they. must Ell
ther repeat the definition stated in .the con-
stitution, as they did in the act passed on the
10th April, 1870, for the punishment Of GER
tam crimes against the u >. or they must
give q different definition. The first would
De merely superfluous: The last would be an
usurPatlon OF power not on not gi en-, but
obviously intended to be withheld.
1t Is assumed as a clear and indisputable
truth, that Congress CANNOT Constitution all
declare that treason shall consist in any thing
but =" leying war against the United States
or !" III adheIing to their enemies, givng'the
aid and comfort" ..-
It's admitted that the bill under consider
definition OF tire .sop, different rom chat a.
dopted hy the constitution: bat it d, es so in
snoStance--it undertakes to give, not a de-
nAlticn or treason but a definition of that
Wh!cn constitutes treason. e. 1t undertakes to
dehnc what is a g levying Of war" This is
In eject The same thing: because treason and
ievJ ing war are the same thing Iftreason
Cannot be defined by law, that act which by
the words OF the constitution. can alone be
treason, is beyond the reach OF legislative
controul. lfnot, if the meaning of the term
Ievylng var may be pronounced by Con-
gress, II their definition may be modified at
their discretion, itlt may be enlarged to-day
and restricted Tomorrow, according to the
policy orPassions Of those in power, the con-
Sututional provision OF this ssbjec; waS Idle
and absurd. What is tre ason unler one ad-
Hlnistrdtion, may not De treason under ano-
tner. Instead of beng as fixed and immuta-
Die as the constitution itself, il becomes per-
;ectly plao.e and elastic, and is expanded
or contracted according 10 the limits which
the variable discretion OF the legislature NAV
prescribe tor the term levying war" This
was never intended by the founders Of our
government II 1t had been, they would
nave said SO IN pain terms, and Congress
would nave been empowered not to declare
the punishment OF treason, as the constitution
now stands but to q tine and punish trea-
son, as well as subordinate offences
Upon principles Of common sense there
lore, contend that bill defining thc term
"levying war" is a bill defining reason, be
cause treason can consist only in ewing war
a proposition more clear, CANNOT easily be
conceived; yet my respect for the reporter
OF the bill, and the com mittee induces me to
say few words more.
The term "levynfg war" il the constitli-
tlonal definition OF treason The bill proDo-
ses to define the term 'levying war pin
other words, it proposes to define definition.
MS experiment would most dnquestonably
be deemed novelty in law, and an absurdf-
ty in logic What its reception may be in
politics, remains yet to be decided.
The advocates of mis- bill must either con
tend, that Congress havea right TO alter the
constitution. or they must say, that in def
ming the term "levy1ng war; do not
define treason. 70 test the purity of this
distinction. let it be ebgrafted on the consti
tuticn, and read as forming part of the ORR
slnal text. he sages who framed the con-
stitutior, would then be made to speak this
language. cit sha not be in the power Of
Congress to declare what treason is we will
ourselves define it, and Tx its limits for ever
1t shall consist only in ievying war against
the United states. But what levyng war
shall be, whether it shall consist of an aetn-
al eHcrtion Of military force, with a view TO
su6vcrt thc govcrnHlent. or OF an assemblaen
OF few deluded individuals, who meet to-
gcther with an intent iorcibly to take posses