p. 9 | TREASON! by C. P. Bollman

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Oakland, California · Feb 27, 1901

TREASON!

By C. P. Bollman

[C. P. Bollman, in Sentinel of Liberty.]

PATRICK HENRY, “the slovenly and awkward youth, in leather knee-breeches and a homespun coat,” was speaking in the Virginia House of Burgesses in 1765—eleven years before the signing of the Declaration of Independence. He had introduced a series of resolutions which “declared that the House of Burgesses and the Executive had ‘the exclusive right and power to lay taxes and imposts upon the inhabitants of this colony;’ and that, consequently, the Stamp Act, and all other acts of Parliament affecting the rights of the American colonies, were unconstitutional and void.”

In urging the adoption of his resolutions, young Henry said: “Caesar had his Brutus, Charles the First his Cromwell, and George the Third”—“Treason!” cried the speaker, “Treason, treason!” echoed from every part of the house—“may profit by their example! If this be treason, make the most of it!” concluded the fearless orator.

But even as long ago as 1765 arraigning the acts of the government was not treason. Until 1352 such language might, under the laws of England, have been deemed treasonable, for under Edward II. “there was no man who knew how to behave himself, to do, speak, or say, for doubt of the pains of such treason.” There was, therefore, no such thing as freedom of speech even in the House of Commons.

But “the famous Statute of Treason” (25 Edw. III., st. 5, c. 2) defined the crime, limiting it to overt acts, so that an Englishman could no longer be “made an offender for a word,” nor could he be hanged for opinion’s sake.

But much as the statute of Edward III. was an improvement over the English common law on the subject of treason, it was still too comprehensive to meet the views of the liberty and justice-loving founders of this government; hence, when the Constitution was framed, it was declared 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.”

To safeguard still further the rights of the people, the first amendment expressly provides that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

These provisions were wise, then. They are needed none the less now. The cry of “treason” has always been a favorite argument with those who had a case to sustain but little or no reason or justice with which to sustain it. It has been invoked by both politicians and ecclesiastics, by both Church and State.

Only a few years since Rev. Robert Patterson, D.D., said of the Sunday institution, as by law established:—

“It is the right of the state to protect by law such a fundamental support of government. This attack on the Sabbath is treason against the very foundations of government. As such, let it be resisted by every American citizen. The American Sabbath is essential to American liberty, to our republic, and to God’s religion.”

Only a few days since a leading senator of the United States denounced as treasonable a petition from 2,006 Filipinos, praying for redress of grievances.

Such incidents are indicative of the trend of the times. Human nature has not changed. Men are by nature just as intolerant now as they were in the time of Edward II., and the people need to be just as jealous of their liberties now as were the fathers of the republic when they wrote into the great national charter, the Constitution of the United States, an enlightened and reasonable definition of treason, and a guarantee of free speech and the right of petition.