Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1861-05-09

thereof, such person or persons, on con.
viction thereof, shall be adjudged guilty of
misprison of treason, and shall be imprison-
ed not exceeding seven years aud fined not
exceeding one thousand dollars.
The crime of treason as defined in the
Constitution and the first section Of the act
Of 1890, consists, first, in leyipg war against
the United States; second, in adhering to
their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.
As the statute does not attempt to specify
the cases which constitute treason under
either of these divisions, it is necessarily the
province and duty ofthe Courts Of the Union.
to decide what facts shall bring partywlthln |
the penalty df1the statute: kcwo
the true allegiance which the people OF tNe
United States had borne to their Constitu-
ton. that from the first organization Of the
Government until recently, the acts OF Grim
ipal disoyalty TO it have been of rare occur
renee. There are, therefore, but few judicial
decisions which can be referred to as guides
in giving construction to the statute OF trea-
son. In the celebrated trial Of Aaron Burr,
which occurred in the year 1907, before Chief
Justice Marshal, that learned Judge with
his usual ability, stated his views Of the
words 'levying wal. against the United
States" He remarks, that taken most
literally, they are perhaps Of the same i'm.
port as the words, raising or creating war
'But," he adds, "as those who join after
the commencement are equally the objects
of punishment, there would be, probably, a
general admission that the terms compre-
hended making war or carrying on war.
No one can doubt the correctness OF this con.
clusion. But the eminent Judge referred
to, does not attempt to specify the various
acts, that would bring party within his in
depreciation Of the words Of the statute.
They are however class of acts so enequivo..
cal in their character, as to be clear OF oil
doubt. Actual service in the army OF the
enemy, is clearly an act of !evying war; And
entertain no doubt that the enlistment Of u
soldier, with the knowledge that he was to
serve against his country, would constitute
the crime oftreason, if there was actual war
at the time of the enlistment. In Burr 5
case, the Court held that the facts in proof
against him showed him guilty ofconspiring
to levy war against his country, but that
however hagitious his conduct, as there was
no open assemblage of an armed force to
T carry out the reasonable purpose, it was
not levying war. And on this ground he
4 was acquitted. But to guard against all mis-
!, conception OF the views of the Court in that
case, the Judge adds: 1T is not the inten
ton OF the Court to say that no individual
$ can be guilty of this crime who has not ap
t peared in arms against his country. On the
5 contrary, if war be actually levied, that is
Q if body OF men be actually assembled fo
. the purposeof effecting by force, a reasonable
: purpose, all those who perform any part
n however remote from the scene Of action
$ and who are actually in the general con
d spiracy, are to be considered as traitors
J. In the same case it is laid down as unques
Il toned law, that when war is levied agains
It the Government with intent to overthrow it
II ''the holding fany The Government s fort
= or ships or attacking the same, or detivertn.
6 them up to rebels through treachsry," ar
J. direct acts Of lsvying war within the mean
n ing of the law. And it is regarded us equal
Q clear, that where military force is embod
d led for a reasonable purpose, if a Commis
y ary of purchases, knowing the object, an
It leaguing himself with the rebels, shoul,
IS purchase supplies or provisions for their use
= though he never saw the army, would never
1t theless be guilty Of levying war. And so to
T. there can DO no doubt that if an individual
4 whether actually authorized or not, shoul
,e open recruiting station for the enlistmer
.y Of soldiers, or should actually enlist men ft
i service in the enemy's army, he would b
,fl guilty of levying war, though he never joir
a cd the hostile force. These are some of tn
10 cases in which direct treason may be con
5, mitted, though the guilty party never joine
l. the enemy, or participated directly in an
ls of the movements of the rebel forces. Th
al enumeration might begreatly extended, bl
III the cases stated are perhaps sufficient t
a illustrate the principle which applies, an
10 TO which the attention Of the Grand Jui
It's has been called.
T. Before passing from the consideration 9
ng the question what constitutes a levying 9
on war, within the meaning of the Constitute
is- and the act of Congress, it will be proper
,g notice that the crime Of ftreason may be con
he mitted by an organized and violent resis
ch ance of the execution of q law of the Unite
gs States. The law, in this aspect Of Il
ye subject, is very clearly and accurate
stated by the late Judge Kane, in a char
ar to the grand jury. lie remarks that, "tl
ny expression lerying ,cdr, embraces not mer
VS. ly the act OF formal or declared war, but al
on combination forcibly to prevent or oppo
ist the execution or enforcement Of provisiC
,s, of the Constitution. or of public statute,
M accompanied or followed by an act Of fore
at bic opposition in pursuance Of such comb
he atom" and, in the case of the United Stat
re- vs.. Fries, the Court stated the law on tn
,al subject as follows: "If body Of men COL
he spire and mediate an insurrection to resist
ue oppose the execution of any statute of u
nd United States by force, they are only guilt
he of u high misdemeanor; but il they pr0cee
to CARRY such intention into execution
u force, they are thcn guilty oftreasop by lev.
it ing wal"
a will now briefly call the attention of II
.ot Grand Jury to the second part Of the defn
to ton of treason, included in the words adh
as ring TO the enemies of The United States, on
cd ing them aid and comfort The statute Civ,
he no specification Of the acts which constitu
he treason under this part Of tho definition
m that crime. Nor can we avail ourselves
ht the aid ofjudieial authorities, to any exten
r. in the Investigation Of this subject. am n
is aware thati any Of the prosecutions f
lst treason In this country, the words under COL
" sideration have received an authoritatiy
cir construction And il is the obvious duty
i Court or judge, in considering their impor
no to guard against giving them q meaning
ass comprehensive as to embrace acts of doub
he full or equivocal character. The words "a
zen herring to their enemies, giving them a
on aud comfort, leave noroom TO doubt th
Of treason may be committed by other msa
The than leyyiny war. But il is not easy to sta
rce or classify the precise nets which under III