and they prescribed expressly that there
should be no interpretation contrary to that
definition, by the Government of the United
States, when it went into operation. And
besides delining what should constitute the
crime, they defined what should be the proof
of it, so there should be no doubt about it.
The crime of treason was defined to be the
levying war against the United States, or the
giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the
United States, using very nearly the terms
of tire statute of Edward the Third; and the
decisions of the courts of England, under
that statute of Edward the Third, have been
accepted by the courts of the United States
in their interpretation of that clause of the
Constitution, the language of the two being
similar, land the decisions of the English
courts upon the subject being deserving of
high credit.
Now, in the formation of the Federal Gov-
ernment, although the States did delegate to
the government of the United States the power
to punish treason against the United States,
the States reserved to themselves the power
to punish treason committed against them-
selves individually. And that. was one of
the great objections to the adoption of the
Constitution of the United States urged by
Luther Martin, in his account of the proceed-
ings of the Convention of 1787, in the speech
which he delivered before the Convention of
Maryland, which was assembled for the pur-
pose of deliberating whether they would
adopt or reject the Constitution of the United
States. He objected on account of the fact
that there was given to the Government of
the United States the power to punish trea-
son against the United States, while it was
admitted on all hands that the power was
reserved to the States to punish treason
against the State, thus subjecting the citizen
to two jurisdictions; and, therefore, the
case might arrive, that act as he would either
for or against the United States, be would be
liable to punishment as a traitor by the one
or the other. Notwithstanding that, it was
supposed at that time to be so remote in the
contingencies of human events as not to call
upon the Convention of Maryland at that
time to refrain from adopting the Constitution
of the United States, and it was adopted
And the State of Maryland has never, from
the time she became a sovereign State down
to the present day, been without a statute to
punish the crime of treason against the State
of Maryland. But she never has, since the
adoption of the Constitution of the United
States in 1787, attempted to punish treason
against the government of the United States
and any such attempt, if contemplated, would
be a most unbeard of anomaly. The Gov-
ernment of the United States, within the
limits of its delegated powers, has full power
and authority to execute its criminal law for
offences against itself, without the aid of any
18 |
other jurisdiction. Its power extends over
every citizen in every State, and it is clothed
with lire power of the army and of the navy
the whole power of the Government, to exe-
cute its processes, and to bring to punish-
ment those who have violated its laws; and
the State of Maryland claims and exercises
within her territorial limits, and the limits of
her reserved powers, the right to punish those
who attempt by force of arms to subvert her
State government, which is separate and dis-
tinct from, and independent of, the Govern-
ment of the United States. It is this treason
against the State government and the laws,
which this Convention bars the power, juris-
diction and authority to interfere with to de-
fine the offence and to prescribe the punish-
ment. But it would be most extraordinary
for us here to undertake to say that those
who are alleged to be in open rebellion
against the power and authority of the United
States, and therefore, liable to punishment by
having their property confiscated to the
United States, shall also be liable to be pun-
ished by confiscated here.
Now, the two offences cannot be the same.
Those who are< guilty of treason against the
United States must have levied war against
the United States, or have given aid and
comfort to its enemies, for the purpose of
subverting the government of the United
States; while those charged with treason
against Maryland, or any other State, must
have for their primary object the subversion
of the State government. The Dorr rebellion
in the State of Rhode Island furnishes us an
illustration of treason against a State. An
effort was there made, without the consent of
any department of the State government, by
those assuming to represent a majority of the
people of the State, who on their own mere
motion met together in a Convention, adopted
a Constitution, elected a Governor, Lieutenant
Governor, judicial officers, and all the other
officers necessary to carry on a State govern-
ment. The attempt was made to inaugurate
that State government, without the consent
of the State government then actually in ex-
istence, and which was recognized as the
State government by the Government of the
United States. Armies on both sides were
raised, and arrayed against each other; the
State government arrayed its forces, and the
revolutionary government arrayed its forces,
and blows were alout to be 'struck. The
State government finding itself unable to
cope with the forces of the revolutionary gov-
ernment, without the aid of the Government of
the United States, called upon the Government
of the United States to aid them in suppress-
ing insurrection in the State, under the pro-
vision of the Constitution of the United States
relating to such cases. The aid of the Govern-
ment of the United States was accorded, and
the insurrection was suppressed, and Dorr
was seized, charged, indicted, tried and pun- |
