The most careful consideration of the definition of treason by the Supreme Court is that given in Ex parte Bollman.1 In its opinion in that case the court say: "To constitute that specific crime for which the prisoners now before the court have been committed, war must be actually levied against the United States. However flagitious may be the crime of conspiring to subvert by force the government of our country, such conspiracy is not treason. To conspire to levy war, and actually to levy war, are distinct offenses. The first must be brought into open action by the assemblage of men for a purpose treasonable in itself, or the fact of levying war cannot have been committed. So far has this principle been carried, that, in a case reported by Ventris, and mentioned in some modern treatises on criminal law, it has been determined that the actual enlistment of men to serve against the government does not amount to levying war. It is true that in that case the soldiers enlisted were to serve without the realm, but they were enlisted within it, and if the enlistment for a treasonable purpose could amount to levying war, then war had been actually levied. It is not the intention of the court to say that no individual can be guilty of this crime who has not appeared in arms against his country. On the contrary, if war be actually levied, that is, if a body of men be actually assembled for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable purpose, all those who perform any part, however minute or however remote from the scene of action, and who are actually leagued in the general conspiracy, are to be considered as traitors. But there must be an actual assembling of men for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war. Crimes so atrocious as those which have for their object the subversion by violence of those laws and institutions which have been ordained in order to secure the peace and happiness of society, are not to escape punishment because they have not ripened into treason. The wisdom of the legislature is competent to provide for the case; and the framers of our Constitution, who not only defined and limited the crime, but with jealous circumspection attempted to protect their limitation by providing that no person should be convicted of it, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court, must have conceived it more safe that punishment in such cases should be ordained by general laws, formed upon deliberation, under the influence of no resentments, and without knowing on whom they were to operate, than that it should be inflicted under the influence of those passions which the occasion seldom fails to excite, and which a flexible definition of the crime, or a construction which would render it flexible, might bring into operation. It is, therefore, more safe as well as more consonant to the principles of our Constitution, that the crime of treason should not be extended by construction to doubtful cases; and that crimes not clearly within the constitutional definition, should receive such punishment as the legislature in its wisdom may provide. To complete the crime of levying war against the United States, there must be an actual assemblage of men for the purpose of executing a treasonable design. In the case now before the court, a design to overturn the government of the United States in New Orleans by force, would have been unquestionably a design which, if carried into execution, would have boon treason, and the assemblage of a body of men for the purpose of carrying it into execution would amount to levying of war against the United States; but no conspiracy for this object, no enlisting of men to effect it, would be an actual levying of war." 2

98 2 Dall. 348; 1 L. ed. 410.

99 1 Paine (U. S.), 265. 1 4 Cr. 75; 2 L. ed. 554.

2 In Homestead Treason Case (1 Dist. Rep. [Pa.] 785), the court, charging the jury, say: "When a large number of men arm and organize themselves by divisions and companies, appoint officers, and engage in a common purpose to defy the law and resist its officers, and to deprive any portion of their fellow-citizens of the right to which they are entitled under the Constitution and the laws, it is a levying of war against the State, and the offense is treason. Much more so when the functions of the state government are usurped in a particular locality, the process of the Commonwealth and the lawful acts of its officers resisted, and unlawful arrests made at the dictation of a body of men, who have assumed the functions of government in that locality. It is a state of war when a business plant has to be surrounded by the army of the State for weeks to protect it from unlawful violence at the hands of men formerly employed in it. Where a body of men have organized for a treasonable purpose, every step taken is an overt act of treason in levying war."

Justice Story in a charge to the jury in the United States Circuit Court, in 1842 (1 Story, 615), said: "A conspiracy to levy war, and an actual levy of war, are distinct offenses. To constitute an actual levy of war, there must be an assembly of persons met for the treasonable purpose, and some overt act done, or some attempt made by them with force to execute, or towards executing, that purpose. There must be a present intention to proceed in the execution of the treasonable purpose by force. The assembly must now be in a condition to use force, and must intend to use it, if necessary, to further, or to aid, or to accomplish the treasonable design. If the assembly is arrayed in a military manner, if they are armed and march in a military form, for the express purpose of overawing or intimidating the public, and thus they intend to carry into effect the treasonable design, that will, of itself, amount to a levy of war, although no actual blow has been struck, or engagement has taken place." And further, "In respect to the treasonable design, it is not necessary that it should be a direct and positive intention entirely to subvert or overthrow the government. It will be equally treason, if the intention is by force to prevent the execution of any one or more general and public laws of the government in its sovereign capacity. Thus, if there is an assembly of persons with force, with intent to prevent the collection of the lawful taxes or duties levied by the government, or to destroy all custom-houses or to resist the administration of justice in the courts of the United States, and they proceed to execute their purpose by force, there can be no doubt that it would be treason against the United States. ... If the object of an assembly of persons, met with force, is to overturn the government or constitution of a State, or to prevent the due exercise of its sovereign powers, or to resist the execution of any one or more of its general laws, but without any intention whatsoever to intermeddle with the relations of that State with the National

The fact that rebels have been recognized by the government as "belligerents" does not deprive that government of constitutional power to treat them, when captured, as traitors.