ished for treason against the State of Rhode
Island. But be was not charged with trea-
son against the United States; not charged
with attempting to subvert the Government
of the United States, although Rhode Island
was one of the United States, and subject to
the Government and laws of the United
States. The purpose of Dorr was limited to
the subversion of the State government, and
therefore his treason was against the State
of Rhode Island. And whenever the case
aball occur that a revolutionary Convention
in this State, without the consent of the
State government, shall undertake upon the
power of numbers to assume to itself the
right to sweep away the existing State gov-
ernment, as was done in Rhode Island, and
to organize a new State government upon a
more popular basis, or upon any other pre-
text, and shall then by force of arms attempt
to carry its purpose into effect, then all those
who may be so engaged will be guilty of
treason against the State of Maryland.
Now, sir, we have never been left in any
doubt, from the foundation of the Govern-
ment of Maryland to the present time, as to
what has always been considered a treason
punishable under the laws of the State of
Maryland. I believe the law, down to 1860,
had been uniform. It was :
" That every person convicted of the crime
of treason against this State, shall suffer
death, or be sentenced to the penitentiary for
not less than six months or more than twen-
ty years, at the discretion of the court."
There was not, however, in that act, any
definition of the crime of treason. The
courts were left to define what constituted
treason, as they were left to define what con-
stituted murder, arson, and a great many
other crimes that are enumerated in the act
of 1805, by reference to the sources of that
branch of criminal jurisprudence which they
were left to exercise, the common law and
the statutes of Great Britain applicable to us
as colonies, and which were in force at the
time of the Revolution. The statute of Ed-
ward the Third was then in force, and the
State left to the courts to define the crime of
treason under the statute of Edward the
Third. That statute will be found in the first
volume of the Code, page 252.
But an alteration in the act was made by
the Legislature of the State in 1861, and a
more definite definition, if I may so speak,
was made of the crime of treason. That act
does not use the word "treason," but de-
scribes an offence which is treason. It is in
these words:
" If any person shall levy war against this
State, or shall adhere to the enemies thereof,
whether foreign or domestic, giving them aid
or comfort, within this State or eslewhere,
and shall be thereof convicted, on confession
in open court or on the testimony of two wit-
nesses, both of them to the said overt act, he |
shall suffer death, or be sentenced to confine-
ment in the penitentiary, for not less than six
nor more than twenty years, at the discretion
of the court."
There we have the definition of the crime
of treason against the State of Maryland.
It consists in levying war against the State
of Maryland. What is that? It is to attempt
to subvert the State government. It seems'
to me there can be no difference of opinion
about that; that nothing less than an organi-
zation to attempt by force of arms to subvert
the State government of Maryland, can pos-
sibly be held by any judicial tribunal in the
State to be levying war against the State.
And I do not see that any definition is pro-
posed to be given to treason by any amend-
ment offered here, which contemplates any
alteration of the definition made by the Legis-
lature of 1861, composed of some of the
ablest lawyers in the State, who had this
whole subject under consideration, and who
fixed the definition of treason so as not to
conflict with the Constitution of the United
States; and it will be found that throughout
this whole act, usually called ' 'the treason
act," the offences for which punishment is
prescribed, are offences against the State; par-
ticularly excluding the idea that this State
has any right to punish any offences that
come under the criminal jurisdiction of the
United States. The idea of making a man
amenable to two separate and distinct jurisdic-
tions, for the same criminal act, was certain-
ly never entertained by any person in this
enlightened country, where the principles of
jurisprudence are sought to be exercised in
the light of the Christian religion and of a
refined humanity.
We thus see what it is we may do. And
1 therefore suggest that the amendment of the
gentleman from Baltimore city (Mr, Stirling)
ought to be amended by adding after the word
"treason" the words "against this State,"
in order to exclude any idea that anything
else was contemplated. I am sure that a mo-
ment's reflection will show that nothing else
can be contemplated, for nothing else can be
effected.
Then after that amendment shall have been
made, and the proposition is submitted,
whether we will, as the punishment of treason
thus defined and understood, alter a Constitution
which has existed for the last twelve
or fourteen years—that Constitution says
that no conviction—it is broad, "no convic-
tion," not only of treason, but of any other
criminal offence, " shall work corruption of
blood or forfeiture of estate "—then the ques-
tion will come up whether this Convention is
prepared to say that that was too humane a
provision to have been incorporated in the
Constitution of 1850, and to be retained in
the new Constitution, and that we must go
back to the earlier ages, in which more severe
punishments were inflicted, for the purpose |
