New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1917-08-17
The Law of Treason
Blu Charles Stewdrt Daoison


Treason against the United States shall
consist only in levying war against them, or
in adhering to their enemies giving them aid
and comfort" GU. S. Cons, Art ILL., Sec. 81.
The trainers of the Constitution we're de-
sirous of guarding in every essential the
rights of the individual. Accusation of trea-
son as a convenient weapon of government
was not unknown to them either in theory or
experience. They therefore deemed it wise in
relation to this particular crime against
governments crime which is characterized
as the most serious crime known to the law
that it should be limited and defined in the
fundamental law itself, and that in its def
milton it should sffirmatively appear that
nothing else and nothing less than that which
they there defined should be held to consti-
tute the offence. To this end they inserted
in the definition the word only: that no
act save one which fell within the definition
should be attempted to be included by as
similation, or as cognate.
The further phrase in this same section Of
this article of the Constitution provides that
convictions for treason must be on the testi-
mony of at least two witnesses to the same
covert act" (unless the charge be confessed
in open COURT. The exact phrase is: mo
person shall be convicted of treason unless
on the testimony of two witnesses to the same
overt act or on confession in open court"
What Constitutes an "Act"?
But many people misconceive the scope and
significance of the word "act.' An expression
OF opinion is fully as much an act as is a
blow. Any exercise of either bodily or mental
power constitutes IAN act"-thoughts and
words equally with deeds. Sc also the re-
verse-non-action when occasion demands the
exertion of mental or bodily power-is
equally IAN act"
There is also popular misunderstanding of
the meaning of the word "overt" when used
in connection with the word "act" 1t is
supposed by many to impart the idea of
affirmative physical action, whereas its full
significance is covered in law if the "act" be
a thing Something, anything) which admits
of direct evidence. When used in connection
with the word "act" the extent of the limta-
ton which the word covert" imposes is merely
to exclude thoughts" For though a thought
is act, it is not an overt act. An covert
act" can. however, be as well words as deeds,
or as well negative as affirmative in char
acter provided only that it be, as said above,
a matter capable of being brought out by
direct evidence of its having eXisted-that
is, provided that it was a thing which had an
outward manifestation at the time, as OPP
posed, in sense, to matters which fall within
the category of things which are merely in
tended or are contemplated or purposed. It
must not be understood that mere words,
however approbatve of the enemy, neces
Sdrilu constitute treason. But it must be
borne in mind that the uttering, orally or in
writing, of words is an overt act, and their
utterance by a given individual may consti-
tute the crime of treason. For example:
verbal or written statement of the govern
ment's forces in a certain place, or of its in
tention, constitutes an overt act. If informa-
tion which aids or encourages the enemy be
conveyed by the statement and the statement
be made by one who adheres to the enemy
this constitutes treason within the definition
of the constitutional provision.
Adherence State of Mind
90 dISO quIIe ScIASi al CilOI cAlSNo VI bhS
scope of the word adhere" One who be-
lieves in a view, or an opinion, or is attached
by liking or preference to an individual or
to nation. is properly designated in law as
being one adhering to such view, or opinion,
to such person or people. Adherence to the
enemies of the United States represents,
therefore, state of mind, the mental atti-
tude of an individual. But, merely to be
attached by liking to a nation which is at
war with the United States does not consti-
tute the crime of treason. One must be both
mentally attached to such enemy and also
give them aid or comfort. That combina-
ton of facts does constitute the crime and
ordinarily the mental attachment, the adher-
ence to the enemy, will be deduced or pre-
sumed from the giving of the aid or COM
fort. 1t falls within those questions which
are all swept up in the jury's verdict. More
over, the word land" in the phrase giving
them aid and comfort" is distinctive, not
a conjunctive. Neither is it an instance Of
the of a synonyme. In legal documents
rhetoric finds no place, and a value, or shade
of meaning, is to be attributed to each word
employed. The figure of speech, questionable
even in colloquial writing or speaking, known
as tautology, finds no place in those most
scrutinized of legal documents, constitutions. |