“The provisions prohibiting the granting of titles of nobility are designed, no doubt, first to preserve equality before the law, and second, to secure in perpetuity a republican form of government. Such provisions are not essential to theoretical equality before the law, for such equality is fundamental in the law of England notwithstanding the existence of titles of nobility. But the framers of the Constitution evidently contemplated a form of government in which there should be no special privileges conferred by rank or title. The additional provision in the Federal Constitution prohibiting the acceptance by any person holding any office of profit or trust under the United States of any present, emolument, office or title from any foreign sovereign or power without the consent of Congress, was probably intended to prevent the exercise of foreign influence in governmental affairs. These articles in the Constitution are substantially borrowed from the Articles of Confederation.”—Emlin McClain, quoted in the _Cyclopedia of American Government_, Vol. II, p. 58. 89 Constitution of the United States, Art. III, Sec. 3, Cl. 1. Treason is defined in this article of the Constitution and therefore Congress cannot define it in any other manner. Many people use the word “treason” very loosely. They often speak of a person committing treason when the act committed is not treasonable at all, but is some less severe crime. Treason consists only in levying war against the United States or in giving aid or comfort to enemies of the United States. The meaning of “two witnesses to the same overt act” is that the Constitution requires that two persons will appear in court and swear to the fact that they personally saw the act committed. “Overt act” means “openly committed act”. Chief Justice John Marshall knew that in the trial of Aaron Burr it would be impossible to get two persons to swear to having seen Burr commit the conspiracy, so he took advantage of the technicality in the indictment and threw the case out of court. This trial was held at Richmond, Virginia. “Confession in open court” is about the only instance in which such confession will convict a person charged with committing a crime. As a rule a person’s own confession will not be accepted as evidence against him, in criminal prosecutions, because few confessions are made without some threat or inducement and under the guaranty (p. 99) that a person cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself they are excluded. 90 Constitution of the United States, Art. III, Sec. 2, Cl. 3.