M^r Elseworth considered the definition as the same in fact with that of the Statute. M^r Gov^r Morris "adhering" does not go so far as "giving aid and comfort" or the latter words may be restrictive of "adhering," in either case the Statute is not pursued. M^r Wilson held "giving aid and comfort" to be explanatory, not operative words; and that it was better to omit them. M^r Dickenson, thought the addition of "giving aid and comfort" unnecessary & improper; being too vague and extending too far. He wished to know what was meant by the "testimony of two witnesses" whether they were to be witnesses to the same overt act or to different overt acts. He thought also that proof of an overt act ought to be expressed as essential in the case. Doc^r Johnson considered "giving aid & comfort" as explanatory of "adhering" & that something should be inserted in the definition concerning overt acts. He contended that Treason could not be both ag^{st} the U. States--and individual States; being an offence ag^{st} the Sovereignty which can be but one in the same community. M^r Madison remarked that "and" before "in adhering" should be changed into "or" otherwise both offences viz. of "levying war," & of adhering to the Enemy might be necessary to constitute Treason. He added that, as the definition here was of treason against _the U. S._ it would seem that the individual States w^d be left in possession of a concurrent power so far as to define & punish treason particularly ag^{st} themselves; which might involve double punishm^t. It was moved that the whole clause be recommitted which was lost, the votes being equally divided. N. H. no. Mas. no. C^t no. N. J. ay. P^a ay. Del. no. M^d ay. V^a ay. N. C. div^d. S. C. no. Geo. ay. M^r Wilson & Doc^r Johnson moved, that "or any of them," after "United States" be struck out in order to remove the embarrassment; which was agreed to nem. con. M^r Madison. This has not removed the embarrassment. The same Act might be treason ag^{st} the United States as here defined--and ag^{st} a particular State according to its laws. M^r Elseworth. There can be no danger to the gen^l authority from this; as the laws of the U. States are to be paramount. Doc^r Johnson was still of opinion there could be no Treason ag^{st} 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 ag^{st} a particular State which is not so ag^{st} the U. States. He cited the Rebellion of Bacon in Virginia as an illustration of the doctrine. Doc^r Johnson: That case would amount to Treason ag^{st} the Sovereign, the Supreme Sovereign, the United States.