850 TREASON majestatis, in all the ages of republican Rome, was regarded as a crime against the state, and not against its magistrates, except- ing as they represented the state. The simple word majestas was often used as meaning this offence, although the whole expression of it was : crimen Icesce, imminuta, diminutce, or minutcz majestatis. At a later period, when the emperors, having first accumulated in their persons the higher magistracies of the repub- lic, gradually and yet rapidly became despotic and irresponsible while the language of the law remained almost unchanged for a consid- erable time, the crime itself came to be re- garded as primarily a crime against the per- sonal sovereign, and derivatively against the state. In Rome, as afterward in England, the power of the sovereigns to enlarge the scope of this crime, and accuse whom they would of it, was enormously abused. But in both of these states it always remained, and in all civilized countries it must always remain, the highest of crimes, and more deserving of the severest punishment than any other; and for these reasons it needs to be most carefully limited, and to be guarded not only as to its extent, but as to the proof by which it may be established. The constitution of the United States (art. iii., sec. 3) declares that "treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." This cannot be regarded as a definition of trea- son so much as a limitation of it, and a decla- ration of what portion of the offences which had been at different times included within its meaning should be regarded as so included by our law. The word treason is used as a cus- tomary law term of well known significance ; and indeed, in the most important cases which have arisen in the United States, it would seem that this provision of the constitution has but exchanged the burden of defining treason for that of defining the levying war against a state and adhering to its enemies. In order to show the true meaning of the word treason, we must go back to the Roman civil law, which on this point had an important influence on the Eng- lish law. In the early days of Rome, the word perduellio (from perduellis, which is defined by Gaius as hostis) was used almost as a syno- nyme of majestas, and indicates the idea of hostility to the state as belonging to it. Al- though commonly spoken of as the equivalent of treason, majestas certainly had a wider ex- tent of meaning and operation than treason ever had in its extremest abuse in England. Cicero says (using the word majestas here in its original sense) : Majestas est in imperil atque in nominis populi Romani dignitate. Else- where, for the purpose of defining the criminal offence of Icesa majestas, he says: Mcjestatem minuere est de dignitate, aut amplitudine, aut potestate populi, aut eoritm quibus populus po- testatem dedit aliquid deroaare ; and in this wide sense majextas was applied to any malad- ministration in office of any magistrate. It be- came afterward much more like treason as it was in the worst periods of English history ; and the abuse of it may be illustrated by some of the provisions of imperial law about the statues of the emperors. By some of these it was de- clared that to repair their statues when going to decay, or to injure one accidentally and un- intentionally, or even to sell one if it had not been consecrated, was not a crime against tbe majesty of the state; but to melt one down after it had been consecrated constituted this offence. The earliest punishment of the crime was perpetual interdiction from fire and water; the later, death, to persons of low condition by wild beasts or burning, to those of higher rank by the ordinary method of execution. We find treason recognized and punished as a crime from the beginning of the common law ; and always the cause pf the crime was some act of hostility against the government by one who owed to it allegiance. But during many ages the criminal law of England was unwrit- ten, and lay in the determinations of judges who were removable at the king's pleasure, and who were often so corrupt that public justice was perverted into an instrument of remorseless tyranny. In the reign of Edward IV. an unfortunate punster, who kept an inn in London with the sign of the crown, said he would make his son heir of the crown ; and for this offence he was hanged, drawn, and quar- tered. In the same reign an owner of deer, one of which was killed by the king while hunting, said he wished the horns of the deer were in the king's stomach; and for this he was put to death. But at a later period, when Russell and Sidney were slain through the in- strumentality of a judicial trial for treason, this atrocious wickedness assumes at least a more dignified appearance. Indeed, during the whole of English history until the times of Cromwell, treason always had, in a greater or less degree, the character of a political offence. At many periods the leading men of the age ,fell victims to it. Hence has arisen a feeling of compassion for the sufferers, and of doubt as to their guilt, which has had an important in- fluence on the public estimation of the crime in that country, and to some extent in this. Another reason for some laxity of thought and feeling concerning this crime, is the extreme uncertainty of the earlier law as to its defini- tion and limits. Thus, Glanvil expressly iden- tifies it with the crimen Icesm majestatift ; Brae- ton includes within it the counterfeiting not merely of the king's seal, but of the king's money ; and by a very current phrase it was supposed to embrace all " encroaching of (en- croachment upon) royal power." So early as the 25th year of Edward III. an attempt was made to remedy this uncertainty by a statute defining treason, which was for the time an excellent law, although quite too wide in its scope. Among the principal offences here called treason were compassing the death of
