Western Reserve chronicle. [volume] (Warren, Ohio) 1855-1921, 1862-08-20

ing men TO join the enemy, and Conspir-
ing L. raise sedition against the Govern
ment in time OF war. are not treason hut
only constitutional freedom Of speech.
This, we suppose, is the recognized
Democratic construction of constitution
al liberty. Doubtless il knows It's own
necessities.
II is the habit of the re>urrected
BUCHANAN Democracy to talk as though
treason could not he committed in a free
! country, and as though it was entirely
despotic to mention such crime. But
such was not the idea Of the founders Of
| the Government The same men gener-
ally, that made the Constitution prescrib-
ed the penaltyof death for treason; and
civilized society has always held it 10 be
the most heinous OF crimes. The reor-
ganized Democracy has already one mar
| tyr 10 this overt virtue" III Senator
| BRIaHT, who recommended His Excel
! leucy JEFF. DAVIS, President of the
Southern Confederacy, as he called him,
friend a. the inventor of an improved
| ire-arm. and was expelled from the Sen
ate therefor. lie j. the head of the re-
vised and improved Democracy in Indi-
ana.
crime Of treason. and so enlarged consti-
tutiOnal liberty, that it regards the rebel
! lion as only the exercise of the constitu-
tional right TO bear arms. The Enquir-
| er makes a constitutional argument of the
same sort by quoting the proviso, that
two witnesses to an overt act shall be
requisite 10 conviction of treason. From
| this il argues. mot wisely but too well, "
that treason must consist in some act.
and that neither opinions nor words are
sufficient to expose a person to the pen
alties prescribed The able writer Ia
bOrs under the impression that an overt
act of treason must consist of violence,
and that speech or writing is not an act.
If he keeps on we shall have him ably ar
guing that 4 deed j not a deed because its
only u piece of writing. whereas q deed Is
a thin" done.
The Enquirer SAYS that "a large number
Of decisions 10y the highest constitutional
tribunal have settled the question that il
is only acts-ovcrt acts-that are punish
able according to the statue We have
the highest respect of assertion. but the
highest tribunal in the land has decided
that when war is levied against the Gov
ernment: all who have conSpired to levy
or promote it. no matter how remote
from the scene of violence. are guilty of
leyying war. Yet the overt acts of those
who did not actually participate in the
violence may have been only words, for a
very nice conspiracy can cOncocted by
words. An overt act Is an open act
one that can be proven.
The rebel leaders haraugue the ignorant
masses. stir up their hostility against the
Government, and incite them to enlist in
the rebel armies. Is that an overt act Of
treason? 1t Is only words-speech; and,
according TO the Enquirer's novel law
point, Is not an overt act. But the writer
did not see the extent Of his new law
principle, and perhaps will not be dispos-
ed to insist upon Il. For his information
we will state that the decisions are that
conSpiring to rebel is not the overt act of
treason, unless the rebellion Is actually
made. Then all who conspired. are
guilty of levyinS war. whether they We're
present at the war or not. This conspir-
ing may he all words. but ii the outbreak
i precipitated, all have committed the
overt act of treason.