◆ SpookStack

. lout by Bh R. Medina, counsel |’ :. }for Antho ramer who is appeal- ’s [ing his conviction in lower courts po es Bae cel 4 Mr, Telaga..........- - AQHLQQURT WEIS] * |FRST TREASURTCASE) Intent of Framers of Constitu- tion Described in Arguments - _ eo “Overs Agia’ pre | Two of these “overt acts” had to do with meetings between Cra- mer and two of the Nazi saboteurs). who had been landed from a sub- marine near Jacksonville, Fia...and were executed follo a military trial in Washington. emer was charged with meeting Werner Thiel and Mdward John Kerling, the saboteurs, in June, 1942, in two ? Ree Wael New York restaurants, the Twin * | Defense Counsel Says Meeting Oaks Inn on Lexington Avenue | ‘| With Nazi Saboteurs Was one cena gtrest between Lexing- Appealing Cramer Conviction ,|SUIT TURNS ON ‘OVERT ACT’ “Wack ie aki Be: Not Actually Traitorous von and odine argued that the Gov- By JAY WALZ ~ | Special to Tas NEW Youn Tues, WASHINGTON, Nov. 6—The Supreme Court, taking up the first trenhie casein ite history, heard arguments today that framers of | the Conatitution deliberately made| , convictions of allaged traitors ex- tremely difficult in order to pro- tect citizens of the new Republic from false charges and perjury. This waa done, it was pointed ermment failed to show what tran- spired at these meetings “an overt ‘act’ of treason. The testimony of the witnesses, he said, did not disclose the subject of conversation between Cramer |: and the Nazis and therefore it was not proved that actual aid and comfort to the enemy had been| .- given. - Mr. Fahy argued that further). testimony offered in Cramet's trial proved the traitorous design of the meetings and that they had been adequately shown to be “overt acts” of treason, Ieaue of 2 Witnesses Is Raised This led to a lively discussion of the conatitutional requirement that two witnesses muat testify to “the i oe of giving aid and comfort to two 5 the West esabateure ¢ ‘lof the Nazi saboteurs who arrived in which ald and comfort was given to the enemy. The founders of our Government, ‘lhe declared, rejected the historic ‘| Mnglish view that mere attempts each meeting, covered by the! — alleged “overt act.” Mr. Fahy, in-{/, aisting once more that “the overt act” must be considered az only a part of the act of treason, main-]' woe Se Ma on and that |i§: the occasion could not constitute a F rf Me. Carsom oo... Mr. Fase Mr. Peneiagten ..... Me. Quine Team.... Mr. Nomee...... ...0-. Mise Gandy ....2..i3- Mr. Teudied.......c0 br course gush lew dbtnygtrom 1351 when the first English crim} nal statute, the Statute of ~Trea- sona, waa enacted. Mr. Medina de- | clared that the English ta the! course of the history had tended | to stretch the literal meaning of their Inw ito make an attempt at treason a crime as well as the ac- ‘taal deed of treason. Protective Device Is Cited This idea, he said, had been “ab- horrent’ to the founders of the country and they had gone to great pains to protect the citizenry from promiscuous charges of treason. Another “overt act” charged against Cramer had do with false testimony which he gave to FBI agents. Mr. Medina held that this misinformation, which Cram- er later admitted was false, was not treasonous, although it might have left the defendant open to other charges. Cramer, in giving falxe information about himadif and the German agents, had met “given aid and comfort to the emy,” Mr. Medina declared, aimee “Withe FBI men had already obtained the facta and were not fooled ed the misstatements. While the maximum treason is death, Cramer wis sah- | tenced to forty-five years | ama a $16,000 fine. . Following oral arguments, Chiet = as Justice Harlan F. Stone held the’ case open to give Cramer's coun- sel the opportunity to file a reply to the Government's reargument. Mr. Medi..4 said that he planned plat helping the enemy was treason. He argued that his client should ‘Inot have been convicted of treason [since he never actually committed ithe treasonous act of giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Charles Fahy, Solicitor General, in supporting the Government's case against Cramer, asserted that the writers of the Conatitu- ‘tion had narrowed the meaning of but he held that acts themselves might be proved to be an integral part of a treasonous ect, He held that “the overt acta,” on which Cramer was successfully prosecuted in two lower courts in New York, were deeds furthering Cranttrg Tatent™ S SPEC Y a> pre. ee same overt act.” Mr. Medina held] .- ; vy submarine in i043, had Baton | that the Government had failed to): e meaning of the crime to ac produce the same two witnesses for]. “9 [EAE A are aan ae same witness to bear testimony for tained it was not necessary for the] 4. all the parts. } to have this gone withing. week. by The Solicitor General empha- sized that only “the overt act” i 4 wat he eaan hy two ultnéesses and THUS) BO BOON ey el vaste eee whether !{ constituted an act of]; ‘ treason might be proved by the tes- F A\S timony of other witnesses. \ This prompted a question trom} Justice Felix Frankfurtur whether} \ such an interpretation of the latter { might make it possible for a per-[ jured witness to defeat the con- stitutions safeguard artenmivd by the two-witnesas provision. This is a clipping from page 4 of the New Yor eg for LIS 4 Clipped at the Seat of Goverment. «gaa