xt7msb3wtd0h_44 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7msb3wtd0h/data/mets.xml https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7msb3wtd0h/data/72m2.dao.xml unknown 166 Cubic Feet 381 document boxes, seven textile items, three map folders, one artwork archival material 72m2 English University of Kentucky The physical rights to the materials in this collection are held by the University of Kentucky Special Collections Research Center.  Contact the Special Collections Research Center for information regarding rights and use of this collection. Frederick Moore Vinson papers Economic stabilization. Elections -- United States -- Congresses. Judges -- Correspondence. Judges -- United States. Judicial opinions Judicial process -- United States Legislators -- Correspondence. New Deal, 1933-1939. World War, 1914-1918 -- Veterans. World War, 1939-1945. Haupt v. USA - no. 49 text Haupt v. USA - no. 49 2019 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7msb3wtd0h/data/72m2/Box_178/Folder_12/Multipage5624.pdf 1946 1946 1946 section false xt7msb3wtd0h_44 xt7msb3wtd0h  

 “81911 14; 1947

mealtime :9 mm 60W

as. as v U.‘


621 page 3., after referring to the act of the father opening
the family door to the son, I an adding the following:

311935 act causedfiherefore, no mere implication that the

father was giving his son aid and eeufort, in a. treason-

able pregect than did the meeting of the defendant with
the enemy agent. in the 9AM ease.

We Be DO



N0. 49.——OC"1‘0BER TERM, 1946.

. , 'On “Yrit of (“er—

Hans Max Haupt, Petitioner. tiorari to the
T'nited S t a t e s.
Circuit (‘ourt of
The United States of America. Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit.


[March #, 1947.]

MR. Jus'ricE DorcLAS.

There is a close parallel between this case and Cramer
v. I'nitcd States, 3‘25 1-. S. 1.

Two witnesses saw Cramer talking with an enemy
agent. So far as they knew the conversation may have
been wholly innocent, as they did not overhear it. But
Cramer. by his own testimony at the trial. explained what
took place: he knew or had reason to believe that the
agent was here on a mission for the enemy and arranged,
among other things. to conceal the funds brought here
to promote the project. Thus there was the most cred—
ible evidence that Cramer was guilty of “adhering" to
the enemy. giving him “aid and comfort". Article III,
§ 3 of the ('onstitntion. And the overt act which joined
him with the enemy agent was proved by two witnesses.
Cramer's conviction, however. was set aside because two
witnesses did not testify to the treasonable character of
(,‘ranier's meeting with the enemy agent.

Two witnesses saw the son enter Haupt's apartment
at night and leave in the morning. That act. without
more. was as innocent as C‘ramer’s conversation with the
agent. For nothing would be more natural and normal, or
more “connnonpla *e” (323 I', 8. pp. 34. 35). or less suspia
cious, or less “incriminating" (32.3 T’. S. p. 24/). than the act
of a father opening the family door to a son. That act on
its face was’as innocent as the act of a waitress serving him
dinner in a restaurant. But that act. wholly innocent on
its face. was shown to be of a treasonablc character. not by
the two witnesses, but by other evidence: that Haupt


2 HAUPT e. U. S.

was sympathetic with the Nazi cause, that he knew the
nature of his son's mission to this country. Haupt’s con-
viction is sustained. though the conversion of an innocent
appearing act into a treasonable act is not made by two

The Constitution provides:

“Treason against the l'nited States, shall consist
only in levying War against them, or in adhering to
their Enemies. giving them Aid and Comfort. N0
Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the
Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act,
or on Confession in open Court.” Article III, § 3.

As the Cramcr case makes plain, the overt act and the
intent with which it is done are separate and distinct
elements of the crime. lntent need not be proved by
two witnesses but may be inferred from all the circuin—
stances surrounding the overt act. But if two witnesses
are not required to prove treasonable intent, two witnesses
need not he required to show the treasonable character
of the. overt act. For proof of treasonable intent in the
doing of the overt act necessarily involves proof that the
accused committed the overt act with the knowledge or
understanding of its treasonable character.

The requirement of an overt act is to make certain 21
treasonahle project has moved from the realm of thought
into the realm of action. That requirement is undeniably
met in the present *ase. as it was in the case of Cramcr.

The Cmmer case departed from those rules when it
held that “The two—witness principle is to interdiet impu—
tation of inrrimfnnl[Hg (Ir/s to the accused by circum—
stantial evidence or by the testimony of a single witness.”
32.”) 1'. H. p. 33. The present decision is truer to the con—
stitutional definition of treason when it forsakes that test
and holds that an act, quite innocent on its face. does not
need two witnesses to be transformed into an incriminating



No. 49.—Ot"1‘omcn TERM, 1946.

On “Vi-it of Portio—

Hans Max Haupt, Petitioner} rari to the I'nitotl

States (‘ i r C 11 i t

(‘ourt of Appeals

The ['11itcdStatt‘s of America. for th 0 Seventh


[March 7—, 1947.]


This (‘:t.<(‘ grows out of :1 singular set of t'irc11instant'cs
1-rinn‘. \1‘:1rrants our most. f'tll't‘lllll attmttion. Petitioner‘s
son was triwl as a snbotmn' lH‘l'oI't‘ a 111ilitary tribunal (10n—
\’i1-1111l :unl (“x't‘t‘lliwh NW If» /)r 1'11 (Jun/'11, 317 U. S. 1.
l)('1lllttltt‘l‘. his wilt-111111t'ourothvrs \wro then jointly trierl
l'or trvnson. .\ll \\‘(‘l'(‘ (,‘tillVit'lt‘tl. petitioner being son—
lt‘llt‘t‘ll 1o rhinth and his witt- to 2() years imprisonment.
('ni/r 1/ NIH/11x \'. [/(lll/)/,"iLTl'l.Sllllll).t\‘:))2:‘*1'71“.Fll1)1l.836.
'l‘lnistx 1-on\'i1}tions, howux't-r. \Vt‘l't‘ rowrsml upon appeal.
(VII/Ml Stu/(s \‘. [/(III/)/. liiti l". Bil tilil. Petitioner has
now boon I‘t‘ll'lt‘tl soparatvly tor trvason; again he has boon
t'ounil guilty. \t'ith tln‘ st‘lttt‘m‘t‘ l)(‘lllf_" t‘(‘1lll('(“tl to life im—
prisonnn‘nt :nnl11$ltl.t)(t()tintn 1.33 l“. 211 771.

llt‘llllmlt‘l‘ was r‘hnrgwl with having: («munithwl three
a11111rnl typos ot' o\'1'r1 arts of trvason: (l)hz1rboring and

shvltvring his son: 12) assisting his son in obtaining r0—

1-111ploy11n‘11t: Ill) :m'onipa11yi11g :1an assistingr his son in
tln‘ p11r1‘hns1'ot:ui automobile. .\ll ot' tln‘isc allt‘g'otl overt,
:ll'ts\1'1‘1'11routnimwli11:1si11f_:l('('o1111tol'tlit‘ilnlit‘titimlt antl
tho jury's wrrlit't was :1 gt-nvIal (1110. Thu (‘ourt llUltlS) CLA lcxttgir
that a l'ntnl 1|1’tivi111n'y 11s to any ot' tln‘ illlt‘gt‘tl ovt‘rt acts
1111111~r sut'h wirvnmstznn't‘s invalivlatt‘s lllt‘ Conviction.
Sint-t- lllt‘ acts whiting to tho harboring :tlHl sheltering


2 HAUPT r. U S.

of petitioner's son did not. in my opinion. amount to overt;
acts of tr ‘ason. I would accordingly reverse the judgment
helow. regardless of the sttl’liciency of the other acts.

The high crime of treason. as I understand it. consists
of an act rendering aid and comfort to the enemy by one
who adheres to the enemy’s cause. Framer v. United
SIN/(x. 323 l‘. S. 1. The act may he one which extends
material aid: or it may he one which merely lends coin—
i'ort. and encouragement. Th ‘ act may 1 ppear to he inno—
cent on its face. yet prove to he treasonahle in nature
when examined in light of its purpose and context.

It does not follow. lit’iwever, that every act that gives
aid and contt'ort to an enemy agent constitutes an overt
act of treason. even though the agent‘s status is known.
The touch of one who aids, is not Midas—like, giving a
treasotnthle hue to every move. An act of assistance
may he of the type which spring from the well of human
kindness, from the natural devotion to family and friends,
or t'ront a practical application of religious tenets. Fitch
acts are not treasonous. however else they may he de—
serihed. They are not treastutous even though, in a
sense. they help in the ell'eetuation of the unlawful pur—
pose. 'l‘o rise to the status of an overt act of treason,
an act of assistance must he utterly incompatihle with
any of the foregoing sources of action. It must he an act
which is consistent only with a treasonahle intention and
with the accomplishment of the treasonahle plan. giving

due consideration to all the relevant surrounding circum—

stances. Thus an act of supplying a military map to a
sahoteur for use in the execution ot his net'arious plot is
an overt act ot‘ treason since it excludes all possihility of
having heen motivated hy non-trcasonahle considerations.
tut an act of supplying tootl to an enemy agent who is
also ones son retains the possihility of having a non-
treasonahle hasis even when performed in a treasonahle


HAI'PT u. I'. s. 3

setting: accordingly. it cannot qualify as an overt act of

It is true that reasonable doubts may be raised as to
whether or not the prime motive for an act was treasonous.
Yet the nature of some acts is such that a non—treasonous
motive cannot be completely dismissed as a possibility.
An overt act of treason. however. should rest upon some—
thing more substantial than a reasonable doubt. Treason
is different from ordinary crimes. possessing unique and
ditlicult standards of proof which confine it within narrow
spheres. It has such serious connotations that its sub—
stance cannot be left to conjecture. Only when the
alleged oyert act manifests treason beyond all reasonable
doubt can we be certain that the crime of treason will be
limited to those whose actions constitute a real threat to
the safety of the nation.

Tested by that standard. the conviction in the instant.
case cannot be sustained. Petitioner, it is said. had the
misfortune to sire a traitor. 'l‘hat son lived with peti—
tioner and his wife in their ('hicaa‘o apartment. After a.
sojourn in (lermany for training as a saboteur. the son
returned to the ('hicaa'o apartment and began to make
preparations to carry out. his mission of sabotage. It is
claimed that petitioner knew of his sons actiyities and
desired to help him. For six days prior to his arrest. the
son lived in petitioner’s apartment: he was, not secreted
in any way. coming and going as be normally would have

The indictment alleged that petitioner committed an
overt act of treason by sheltering and harboring his son
for those six days. ('oncededly, this was a natural act
for a father to perform : it is consistent with parental devo—

tion for a father to shelter his son. especially when the
son ordinarily lives with the father. hit the (‘ourt says
that the jury might find. under appropriz'tte instructions;


4 IlAl'l’T r. l'. S.

that petitioner prtwided this shelter. not. merely as an act
of an indulgent father toward a disloyal son. but as an act
designed to injure the l'nited States. A saboteur must
be lodged in a safe plaee if his mission is to be efft “,th and
the jury might well find that petitioner lodged his son for
that purpose.

int. the net of providing shelter was of the type that
might naturally arise out of petitioner's relationship to
his son. as the Court reeog'nizes. By its very nature,
therefore. it is a iioii—treasonous aet. That is true even
when th i aet is Viewed in light of all the surrounding eir-
eumstanees. All that ean he said is that the prohlem of
whether it was motivated by treasonous or non-treasouous
faetors is left in doubt. It is therefore not an overt aet of
treason. regardless of how despicable or unlawful it might:
otherwise be.