Page:The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 Volume 2.djvu/353

 RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION 3Jr7 Moda2 MADISON ,'/=gust ;o Mr M(adison) This has not removed the embarrassment. The same Act might be treason agst. the United States as here defined- and agst a particular State according to its laws. Mr Elseworth- There can be no danger to the Genl authority from this; as the laws of the U. States are to be paramount. Docr Johnson was still of opinion there could be no Treason agst a particular State. It could not even at present, as the Confederation now stands; the Sovereignty being in the Union; much less can it be under the proposed System. Col. Mason. The United States will have a qualified sovereignty only. The individual States will retain a part of the Sovereignty. An Act may be treason agst. a particu- lar State which is not so against the U. States. He cited the Rebellion of Bacon in Virginia as an illustration of the doc- trine. Docr. Johnson: That case would amount to Treason agst the Sovereign, the supreme Sovereign the United States- Mr. King observed that the controversy relating to Trea- son might be of less magnitude than was supposed; as the legislature might punish capitafly under other names than Treason. Mr. Govr Morris and Mr Randolph wished to substitute the words of the British Statute (ahd moved to postpone Sect. z. art VII in order to consider the following substitute--"Whereas it is essential to the preservation of liberty to define precisely and exclusively what shall constitute the crime of Treason, it is therefore ordained, declared & established, that if a man do levy war agst. the U.S. within their territories, or be adherent to the enemies of the U.S. within the said territories, giving them aid and comfort within their territories or elsewhere, and thereof be provably attainted of open deed by the People of his condition, he shall be adjudged guilty o Treason") * On this question N. H Mss- no. Ct. no. N. J- ay Pa. no. Del. no. Taken from JouraoJ.

�