which violent factions, the natural offspring of free governments, have usually wreaked their alternate malignity on each other.[1]
§ 1793. It was under the influence of these admonitions furnished by history and human experience, that the convention deemed it necessary to interpose an impassable barrier against arbitrary constructions, either by the courts, or by congress, upon the crime of treason. It confines it to two species; first, the levying of war against the United States; and secondly, adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.[2] In so doing, they have adopted the very words of the Statute of Treason of Edward the Third; and thus by implication, in order to cut off at once all chances of arbitrary constructions, they have recognized the well-settled interpretation of these phrases in the administration of criminal law, which has prevailed for ages.[3]
§ 1794. Fortunately, hitherto but few cases have occurred in the United States, in which it has been necessary for the courts of justice to act upon this important subject. But whenever they have arisen, the judges have uniformly adhered to the established doctrines, even when executive influence has exerted itself with no small zeal to procure convictions.[4] On one occasion only has the consideration of the question come before the Supreme Court; and we shall conclude what we have to say on this subject, with a short extract from the opinion delivered upon that- ↑ The Federalist, No. 43; 3 Wilson's Law Lect. 96.
- ↑ See also Journ. of Convention, 221, 269, 270, 271.
- ↑ See 4 Black. Comm. 81 to 84; Foster, Cr. Law, Discourse I. But see 4 Tuck. Black. Comm. App. Note B.
- ↑ See 4 Jefferson's Corresp. 72, 75, 78, 83, 85, 86, 87, 88, 90, 101, 102, 103. See Burr's Trial in 1807; 3 Wilson's Law Lect. 100 to 106.
