The Cramer Treason Case J. Woodford Howard, Ur. Cramer v. United States' is a landmark in American law of treason. This sequel to the no torious Nazi Saboteur Case is a happier tale than the original. Many ingredients—the Constitution, timing, advocacy, personalities, even chance— transformed a minor wartime incident into the first and foremost treason case decided on the merits by the Supreme Court. Cramer was the tribunal’s sole decision during World War II to enforce and enlarge constitutional limits on ex ecutive war powers. It is also an inspiring story of the struggle of lawyers and judges to uphold high professional standards amid the passions of total war. Anthony Cramer was accused of treason for intentionally aiding two Nazi saboteurs, Werner Thiel and Edward J. Kerling, in New York City prior to their arrest. A prim, pallid bachelor of forty-two, Cramer was a laborer who shoveled coal in a boiler room of a Brooklyn licorice fac tory for $45 a week. He was bom in Germany and became a U. S. citizen in 1936. Despite earnest efforts at self-education and improvement in this country, he failed to advance his fortunes. In the 1930s, he worked and roomed for a while with Werner Thiel, a Bundist and ardent Nazi, who returned to Germany in 1941 and trained as a saboteur. The essential evidence against Cramer was that Thiel contacted him under an alias on June 22, 1942. Cramer surmised that Thiel had come by submarine on a mission for Germany, per haps agitation and propaganda to stir up unrest, butThiel evaded queries about his plans. Cramer befriended Thiel in several ways. He met twice with Thiel and his leader Kerling at restaurants near Grand Central Station, both meetings ob served but not overheard by FBI agents. He ar ranged forThiel’s fiancee, Emma (Norma) Kopp, a domestic servant in Connecticut, to visit them in NewYork. At their last meeting he tookThiel’s money belt containing $3,670 for safekeeping, carefully separated $160 for Thiel and $200 that Thiel owed him, and then put the rest in his safety deposit box and the belt in his room. After his arrest Cramer foolishly lied to pro tect Thiel. On learning the gravity of charges against him, and receiving promises that his falsehoods would be forgiven, he recanted and gave long statements to FBI agents, denying any knowledge of sabotage plans. Except for Norma Kopp’s testimony that he knew Thiel’s purpose, the main proof consisted of Cramer’s statements and personal effects, which he made no attempt to hide. Federal prosecutors charged him with one count of treason for adhering to enemies of the United States, giving them aid and comfort. They specified ten overt acts and asked for the death penalty.2 The tough knot of this case was the law of CRAMER TREASON CASE 50 treason. The Constitution provides that Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Com fort. No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.3 As applied to Cramer’s case, these standards raised subtle and novel issues. The crime was ancient. English statutes since 1351 required overt acts as safeguards against oppression for political beliefas well as two witnesses after 1695 to guard against perjury. Yet the plain purpose of the Treason Clause, the only crime defined in the Constitution, was to curb English abuses such as treason by “compassing” (imagining or plot ting a monarch’s death) and “constructive” trea son (stretching the offense to suppress peaceful political opposition). The Framers, fearing abuse of treason almost as much as treason itself, made critical changes in traditional law. They retained only two types of treason, made adhering and aid and comfort separate elements ofthe offense, shifted the English two-witness requirement from treason generally to the same overt act, and left only penalties to legislative control. Defining treason constitutionally in terms of action, de priving Congress of this power, they repudiated substantial English experience even while using English...