which it was at all probable that the Leg-
islature would at any time decree a forfeiture of
estate.
Mr. JENIFER said, that he would with pleasure
accept the suggestion of his colleague, (Mr. Mer-
rick.) But he, (Mr. J.) could not see any great
distinction between the crime of murder and that
of treason, so far as the principle involved in this
amendment was concerned. His great object was
to provide that no family should be deprived of
its property, by reason of crimes committed by
its head. He would have preferred that the
whole article should be stricken out; but was
willing to accept the proposition of the gentle-
man from Charles, (Mr. Dent.) The object was
to punish the criminal, but not to punish an in-
nocent and unnoffending family.
Mr. DENT read the sixteenth and twenty-fourth
articles, to show that the amendment of the gen-
tleman from Charles, (Mr. Jenifer,) if adopted,
would conflect with the former. If that amend-
ment should be adopted, it would be requisite to
strike out the 16th article.
Mr. DORSEY thought, he said, that it would
be rather unsafe to strive out the word "treason."
He was in favor of striking out the word "mur-
der," but thought that "treason" ought to be re-
tained. During our revolutionary struggle, we
found the Legislature constantly passing laws
under which a considerable portion of the most
valuable real estate in the State of Maryland,
was sold—the property of tories—of those who
abandoned their country in the hour of her peril,
and fled to the enemy. A crisis might arise in
the history of this country, where a similar ne-
cessity would exist. He believed that under
every government, treason was punished by for-
feiture of property, as a matter of course.
Mr. D. explained that the conflict between the
several articles of the bill of rights, which the
gentleman from Charles, [Mr. Dent,] supposed
would exist under the amendment, would not in
fact take place.
Mr. MERRICK said, he thought that this power
to punish treason by forfeiture, was a matter of
some importance to the goverment, and ought to
be retamed. This punishment was intended to
operate, not upon the subordinate portion of the
community, but upon the wealthy and powerful
traitor. He had the means of eluding the criminal
law, and it was only by an infliction of this charac-
ter that he could be reached. This power consti-
tuted a check upon him for which no adequate
substitute could befound. There was no other
punishment applicable to them. The crime of
treason was a high public crime, which could
not otherwise be reached.
Mr. DENT said, he stood corrected as to the
supposed conflict between the two articles.' He
found they would not conflict. He had no ob-
jection to forfeiture for treason, and he then
modified his amendment.
After a few words by Mr. CHAMBERS, of Kent,
and Mr. DORSEY, as to the construction to be
given to the article—
Mr. JENIFER remarked that this clause was
engrafted on the Bill of Rights just at the mo-
ment when we were emerging from the Revolu-

tion. It was not probable that any such events
would happen again. Why then were we to pun-
ish an innocent family for the guilt of a single
individual? Upon reflection, he felt constrained
to adhere to his original motion to strike out all
the clause after the word "crime."
The PRESIDENT. Does the gentleman move
that amendment ?
Mr. JENIFER. I do.
Mr. MERRICK rose and was proceeding to ad-
dress the Convention—when
Mr. CHAMBERS, of Kent, interposed, and sug-
gested to him that he (Mr. M.) could attain his
object, by calling for a. division on the motion of
the gentleman from Charles, (Mr. Jenifer,) to
apply to the words "murder or."
Mr. MERRICK intimated his intention so to do.
His object, he said, was to retain in the Legisla-
ture the power to punish the crime of treason by
forfeiture of estate. It was wise and prudent
that the power should beretained in the hands of
a body to which the people of the State were to
look for all their future well-being, to reach a
crime in the only way in which it ever could be
reached.
Some conversation followed between Messrs.
JENIFER and MERRICK—after which
The question was taken on striking out from.
the section, the words "murder or."
And it was agreed to.
So the said words were stricken out.
The question then recurred and was taken on
the amendment of Mr. JENIFER, and, by ayes 34,
noes 21, the said words were stricken out.
Mr. DENT now moved to strike out the article,
and insert the following substitute:
"That no conviction shall work corruption of
blood or forfeiture of estate."
The question was taken and the substitute was
adopted.
The twenty-fifth article, as amended, was then
read.
Mr. THOMAS suggested, that this article frus-
trated one of the objects he had in view, in the
vote which he had just given. He desired to
strike out all that part of the article, which for-
feited the estate for treason or murder. He de-
sired to deny to the Legislature the power to de-
clare by law, that either of these crimes should
work a forfeiture of estate. If the amendment
of the gentleman from Charles, (Mr. Dent,) pre-
vailed, his, (Mr. T.'s) object in the vote he had
given, was defeated. The conviction itself
might not work a forfeiture; but the Legislature
might provide by bill of attainder, for a forfei-
ture.
Some explanation followed.
Mr. THOMAS hoped some gentleman would
move a reconsideration of the vote just taken.
Mr. DORSEY suggested, that the sixteenth sec-
tion, accomplished the object which the gentle-
man from Frederick, (Mr. Thomas,) had in
view.
Mr. THOMAS acquiesced, remarking that he
was not here at the time the report was made,
and 'had not, therefore, had an opportunity of
examining it.