Daily union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1865-1866, 1866-09-20
VOLUME XXXIII.


4 against the United States.
, 1t is extremely difficult TO imagine a cas-
. Of treason against State, that would no
amount TO treason against the United States
And it is still more difficult 10 resist thu
conclusion that the trainers of the Constitu
ton intended 10 exclude the States from the
trial Of causes Of treason. They undertake
% define treason, and leave the definition oil
all other crimes 10 the law-making power Of
the United States, and 10 the several States.
/. This action of the trainers Of the Constitu-
ton was not without its object Why do
they make treason lhe only exception in the
whole catalogue Of crimes? The great men
r who framed the Constitution of the United
States, were not insensible to the fact that
more innocent and patriotic men had suffer-
cd death, and corruption Of blood, for trea-
son, than for all the other crimes. Under
the old common law It was left 10 the discre-
lion Of the courts % define treason The
result was that a vindictive and cruel mon
arch, when he feared the power or ability of
a subject, had but 70 resort TO a corrupt
judge, that was indebted to him for his
place, to secure a conviction and attainder.
The history of England is replete with in
stances of the prostitution of the powers Of
governments 10 the unworthy and despica-
bic purpose Of destroying worthy and patri-
otto subjects. So intOlerable was this griev-
anee, that as early as the reign of EDWARD
the Third, the Parliament took upon itself
10 define treason, and that definition has
been the Constitution of England, on that
subject, from that day TO this. Despite this
precaution, thousands Of innocent men and
women have suffered death at the hands of a
cruel and revengeful monarch, and a cor
rupt Judge. Nor are republics exempt
from these outrages. The FederaIist has
! justly remarked, that "new-fangled and arti-
/ fetal treasons have been the great engines
! by which violent factions, the natural of
| spring Of free governments, have usually
| wreaked their alternate malignity on each
| otherv
May we not naturally conclude that the
| trainers of the Constitution intended 10 pre-
vent repetition Of these evils, by making
| the definition Of the crime of treason part
Of the organic law of the land? Mr. STORY
says their object was to place an impossible
barrier against arbitrary constructions, either
by the courts or by Congress, upon the crime
Of treason. 2 STORY, sec. l,799.
Are we not then to conclude that they in
tended to preclude any cognizance, by State
authorities, Of the crime of treason. For
of what avail is the constitutional definition
Of treason, if the several States can travel
outside Of that definition, andcreateas many
new-fangled treasons as theircapriceo or malice !
may dictate? Thus we see that thirty odd |
different legislatures can create as many diff |
ferent kinds Of treason as they think proper, |
thereby defeating the object of the trainers |
Of the Constitution in giving it fixed def |
milton, and plunging this free and happy |
country into the vortex of abuses on this |
subject that the statute of EDWARD III, had. |
10 some extent, extricated the mother coun- |
try from. We are answered, that the Con- |
stitution has prescribed a law for Congress |
only; if so, then a State may create any |
treason, and afix punishment to it. They !
may declare that an attainder of treason |
works corruption Of blood; yet the Consti- |
tuition, in the same article and section, pre- |
scribes that no attainder of treason shall |
work corruption Of blood.
Upon this point there is a great dearth of |
authority. Mr.. EDWARD LIVINGSTON, in /
his Introductory reportto the Criminal Court /
Of Louisiana, maintains that treason against /
State is treason against the United States, |
and is therefore punishable by their laws. /
Mr.. STORY, in section 1901 of his common
tary on the Constitution, by the strongest
implication, EXPRESSES the opinion that trea-
son cannot exist against a State that would
not, at the same time, be treason against the /
United States Speaking Of the power of
State TO punish treason against itself he says:
II, indeed, a case can exist under the Con-
stitution which is not, at the same time,
treason against the United States" A writer
in the American Law Magazine treats this
subject at great length and with consummate
ability: Undoubtedly, if the question is
considered apart from the relations Of the
State and Federal Governments, an act of
war for the subversion Of State govern
ment is treason against the State, but the
same oilense constitutes treason against the
Federal Government and the crime against
a part is atoned for by the punishment in
hicted for the ofiense against the general
sovereignty. The General Government does
not, as in certain other cases, supercede the
State Government, by reason of delegated
Jurisdiction. The subject of treason is with
in the jurisdiction of each sovereignty, and
il is competent for each to make full provi-
sion for the punishment Of the crime. But
the citizen, who owes double allegiance,
cannot be twice punished, or put in peril, for
the same otiense. The crime which was
committed against State, tends also to the
destruction Of the confederacy. The laws
of the State provide for the punishment of
the crime against its own sovereignty. The
laws of the United States provide for the
punishment of the ofense, not onlyr the
crime against the State, but also as commit
ted against the government of the nation.
The power Of the State is maintained.
Its sovereignty is not diminished, but
the accused pleads within its juris-
dietion, another liability, which consti-
tutes a personal exemption. 1t might, how
ever, be maintained that the sovereignty of
General Government entirely supersedes that
,f = A.. -,,ls Il. |
the jurisdiction of the former. What is
sovereignty? In its true sense it implies
independence and superiority There is,
however, no actual independence of the
States in relation 10 the United States but
the supremacy of the latter is absolute in
all cases, where the constitutional powers Of
the Government are exercised. Sovereignty |
not only implies independence, bat absolute
powers Of government but neither the |
United States nor the States can exercise
such powers As one whole, the States and
the United States may exercise full powers
of government Before the adoption Of the
Constitution Of the United States the States
were independent governments, capable Of
exercising every power of sovereignty but
so far as those powers were withdrawn and
to the Government Of the United
States, their sovereignty was diminished. I
The degree IN which the sovereignty OF the
States is affected by the Constitution Of the
United States, is measured by the extent Of
those enumerated powers, which cannot be
and in their exercise necessarily
supercede those Of the States The applica-
ton Of the term sovereignty to the Govern {
ment of the United States is an erroneous '
use OF language, and has tendency to con-
found ideas In all most all discussions re-
lating 20 the State governments from this .
perversiOn Of terms, an unfounded assump- I
ton has been made, which has tended TO {
false conclusions The Constitution Of the I
United States provides that Congress shall |
have the power to provide for calling forth !
the militia % execute the laws Of the Union,
suppress instructions and repel invasions !
and TO provide for organizing, arming disci- Z
plming the militia, and for governing such T
part Of them "a may be employed in the {
service Of the United States. How can a 6
government be sovereign in any just sense of .
the term, whose army Is under the control of .
another government, which is empowered to {
organize arm and discipline it? Theprop- S
er mode Of regarding the tive governments c
Is, as exercising the distributed powers Of {
one entire sovereignty. From the nature Of a
the Gaze, the General Government must have A
exclusive jurisdiction of all crimes which 6
are committed against the whole people Of !