from the chairman of the committee his rea-
sons for submitting this motion. "
Mr. STIRLING. I do not propose to argue
the question fully. As I said before, I rather
suppose that, strictly speaking, it would not
be absolutely necessary to make the change,
but the purpose is explained by reference to
the debates of the last Convention. As to
the remark of my colleague upon the commit-
tee, that when this article was before the
committee I did not propose to make any
change, it is proper for me to state that I did
not then intend to do so; but of course, mak-
ing this report, does not preclude a subse-
quent motion to amend, when I come to the
conclusion, upon reflection, that a change is
proper. By referring to the debates in the
former Convention, pages 199 and 200, vol.
I, members will find that the article now in
this Constitution is not the article as report-
ed by the Committee upon the Declaration of
Rights. The article as reported by the com-
mittee, of which Judge Dorsey was chair-
man, was as follows:
"Art. 24. That there ought to be no for-
feiture of any part of the estate of any per-
son for any crime except murder, or treason
against the State, and then only on convic-
tion and attainder."
" Mr. Jenifer moved to amend the said sec-
tion, by striking out all after the word "crime.' '
" Mr. J. said he did not see that any case
could arise in the State of Maryland where
& forfeiture of property should take place af-
ter a criminal execution. It would be a hard
case that afamily already suffering the bitter
results of the criminal acts of its head, should
be visited also with this additional infliction
"Mr. Dent offered a substitute for this said
motion,' to read as follows :
''Strike out all the 24th article to the
word " treason," in the second line, and in-
sert in lieu thereof, the following :
"That no conviction shall work corruption
of blood, or forfeiture of estate, except for."
" Mr. Jenifer expressed his willingness to
accept this substitute as a modification of his
own proposition.
" Mr. Merrick desired to suggest to his col-
league (Mr. Jenifer) that it might possibly
be well that be should modify his amend-
ment He (Mr. M.) would suggest that the
time might come when it not only might be
good policy, but due to justice, that there
should be a forfeiture of property in case of
treason. If it met the views of his colleague
he (Mr. M ) thought that the object might he
answered by simply striking out the words
" murder or."
''He could not contemplate any crime as
to which it was at all probable that the Legis-
lature could at any time decree a forfeiture of
estate.
" Mr. Jenifer said that be would with plea-
sure accept the suggestion of his colleague
(Mr. Merrick.) But he (Mr. J.) could no |
see any great distinction between the crime
of murder and that of treason, so far as the
principle involved in this amendment is con-
cerned. His great object was to provide that
no family should be deprived of its property
by reason of crime committed by its head.
He would have preferred that the whole arti-
cle should be stricken out; but was willing to
accept the proposition of the gentleman from
Charles, (Mr. Dent.) The object was to pun-
ish the criminal, but not to punish an inno-
cent and unoffending family.
" Mr. Dent read the 16th and 24th articles to
show that the amendment of the gentleman
from Charles, (Mr. Jenifer,) if adopted, would
conflict with the former. If that amendment
should be adopted, it would be requisite to
strike out the 16th article.
" Mr. Dorsey thought, be said, that it
would be rather unsafe to strike out the word
" treason." He was in favor of striking out
the word "murder," but thought that
"treason" ought to be retained. During
our revolutionary struggle, we found the
Legislature constantly passing laws under
which a considerable portion of the most val-
uable real estate in the State of Maryland
was sold—the property of lories—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 necessity would exist. He
believed that under every government, treason
was punished by a forfeiture of property, as
a matter of courge."
After some further debate, they adopted
the article as it stands in the Constitution. I
have only to state that the views of Judge
Dorsey are the views which I entertain, I
think for treason, there ought to be forfeiture
of estate. But instead of saying that "acrisis
might arise," I will say that a crisis has
arisen, I wish to leave the words that no
conviction shall work corruption of blood,
because I desire that the right of the descend-
ants to inherit, should not be impaired by
reason of the crime of the ancestor. I do not
wish to leave the section as it stands, because
the construction might be placed upon it
that it was a universal prohibition of forfeit-
ure in any case whatever, it is true, it is
not necessarily liable to that construction, for
the words that it shall not "work" corrup-
tion of blood or forfeiture of estate, may not
prevent the Legislature from prescribing for-
feiture as the punishment of crime. Bat as
there is a difference of opinion about it, in
order to avoid ambiguity, I desire to make
this change so as to recognize the right to
punish treason by forfeiture of estate.
Mr. CLARKE. I prefer that the article
should remain as it is. But if the amend-
ment of the gentleman from Baltimore city
(Mr. Stirling) is to be incorporated into it, I
should prefer that it should go in with this
amendment, to add: |
