"danger, a less frequent interruption of their peace by "foreign nations, and what is of inestimable value, "they must derive from union an exemption from those "broils and wars between themselves which so fre"quently afflict neighbouring countries, not tied toge"ther by the same government, which their own rival"ships alone would be sufficient to produce, but which "opposite foreign alliances, attachments, and intrigues,, "would stimulate and embitter. Hence, likewise, they "will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military "establishments which under any form of government "are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be re"garded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. "In this sense it is that your union ought to be consi❝dered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the "love of the one ought to endear to you the preserva❝tion of the other.

"These considerations speak a persuasive language "to every reflecting and virtuous mind, and exhibit "the continuance of the union as a primary object of "patriotic desire. Is there a doubt whether a common 66 government can embrace so large a sphere? Let ex"perience solve it. To listen to mere speculation in "such a case were criminal. We are authorized to "hope that a proper organization of the whole, with "the auxiliary agency of governments for the respective "subdivisions, will afford a happy issue to the expe"riment. With such powerful and obvious motives to "union, affecting all parts of our country, while expe

rience shall not have demonstrated its impractica"bility, there will always be reason to distrust the pa"triotism of those who in any quarter may endeavour "to weaken its bands."

1

APPENDIX, No. I.

IT escaped attention till it was too late for the body of the work, that among the restrictions we ought to have adverted to the subject of treason, and the corruption of blood.

Treason is the single crime defined in the constitution, and it consists only "in levying war against the "United States, or in adhering to their enemies, giv"ing them aid and comfort." The term "levying "war" is understood to have been taken from the English statute of 25th Edward III., and is to receive the same construction with us which is given to it in that country.

The war which is spoken of, embraces both hostilities from abroad and internal rebellion. An insurrection, the object of which was to suppress an office of excise established under a law of the United States, and the marching with a party in arms to the house of the ex cise officer and committing acts of violence and outrage there, with a view by force and intimidation to prevent the execution of the law, has been held to amount to a levying of war against the United States. (153) A conspiracy to subvert by force the government of the United States, violently to dismember the union, to coerce repeal of a general law, or to revolutionize a territorial government by force if carried into effect, by

(153) United States Vigol, 2 Dallas, 346. United States v. Mitchell, ib. 348.

embodying and assembling a military body in a military posture is an overt act of levying war, and not only those who bear arms, but those who perform the various and essential parts which must be assigned to different persons for the purpose of prosecuting the war, are guilty of the crime. (154)

Similar acts committed against the laws or government of a particular state, are punishable according to the laws of that state, but do not amount to treason against the United States, and on the other hand, in case of a war between the United States and a foreign nation ; adhering to such foreign nation, and giving them aid and comfort in the prosecution of the war, amounts to treason against the United States, and not against the state of which the party is a citizen. (155)

The restrictions are dictated by a spirit of humanity. "No person shall be convicted of this crime, unless "on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt "act, or on confession in open court." A confession out of court, although before a magistrate, is not sufficient; but after the overt act of treason is proved by two witnesses, it may be given in evidence by way of corroboration. (156) The testimony of the two witnesses must be to the same overt act, and not as in England it may be, to two different acts of the same species of treason.

It is not within the scope of this work to notice all the legislative provisions which have since been made in respect to trials for treason; it is sufficient to say, that they pursue the same liberal and humane spirit for purpose of affording to the accused the utmost lati

the

(154) 4 Cranch, 470. United States v. Burr et al. (155) Lynch's case in New York, 11 Johnson, 553. (156) United States v. Fries, printed report of the trial, p. 171.

tude of defence, but in case of his conviction, congress, which has the power to declare the punishment, has imposed that of death. Treason is not only in itself a very high offence against the community, but has the peculiar character of producing in its course the commission of many other crimes, among which may be reckoned robbery and murder, and it is in all countries subjected to severe punishments. But the forfeiture of life is not with us aggravated by refined and useless cruelty. Who can read without horror the punishments of Ravaillac and Damiens, or the sentences, in modern times deemed too barbarous to be enforced against traitors in England?

The restriction on congress in respect to the punishment is, that no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture, except during the life of attainted.

the person

Corruption of blood is derived from the common law of England, and signifies that an attainted person can neither inherit land from his ancestors, nor retain what he is in possession of, nor transmit it by descent to his heirs, nor shall any person make title by descent through him, though from a more remote ancestor.

In respect to the forfeiture, the meaning seems to be, that congress shall not impose a forfeiture beyond the term of the offender's life, but are not restricted from abolishing it altogether, and in this sense it has been understood and acted on by them, in the law for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States, passed on the 30th of April, 1790, the language of which is as follows:

"No conviction or judgment for any of the offences "aforesaid," (in which are included treason, murder, robbery, piracy, and other crimes,) "shall work cor"ruption of blood or any forfeiture of estate."