" Which forfeiture of estate shall only con-
tinue during the life of the person attainted,"
This is in the language of the Constitution
of the United States.
Mr. STIRLING. My objection to that is that
the clause of the Constitution of the United
States to which the gentleman refers, has
given rise to very great difference of opinion.
Mr. CLARKE. I have drawn this amend-
ment to meet the very difficulty and doubt
which now for the first time is supposed to
exist in the provision in the Constitution of
the United States. We have had the opin-
ions of Mr. Webster and afall whom we have
regarded as expounders of the Constitution ;
but now there is a new doctrine, and some
doubt is expressed what its meaning. Nobody
ever saw the difficulty before; but the ablest
expounders of the Constitution consider it
perfectly plain and clear. But the doubt has
been expressed—the gentleman referred to it
—and my amendment meets that very case.
The doubt which has just grown up is this:
whether the expression " but no attainder of
treason shall work corruption of blood or for-
feiture, except during the life of the person
attainted," means that the party shall he
convicted after he is dead or not or is con-
fined to conviction during the period of his
life. For the first time in this country the
doctrine is attempted to be promulgated that
after a main is dead you can try him for
treason, enter a judgment of condemnation
against him, and then forfeit his property.
I say that that proposition is now for the
first time broadly asserted in this land. The
gentleman ?ays it has always been open to
doubt. Why, sir, at the time of the adop
tion of this Constitution, and through all the
period of proscription of parties because of
trials for treason, through all the decisions
from the Supreme Court of the United States,
coming from Chief Justice Marshall and the
other chief justices and justices of the Supreme
Court, that settled the law of the land and
the construction of the Constitution, it was
never supposed for a moment that we could
try a man after he is dead, and convict him
of treason; that when sleeping in the cold
earth, after his spirit has gone back to its
Maker, you could resuscitate that body, hold
up his dry bones, and in the recollection of
what he had done, call him to account, and
if judgment was pronounced against him, you
could reduce his children to beggary. It was
construed to mean this: that a man must be
alive, that he must, as the Constitution says,
be confronted by his peers, and have a trial
by jury, have the right to employ counsel,
and enjoy all the other safeguards of the
Constitution, which the amendments to the
Constitution throw around him; and then,
if convicted of treason, it will only work
corruption of blood or forfeiture during the
life of the person convicted. You could only
enter a decree of condemnation of property, |
which condemnation should extend during
the life of the individual, the property of his
children would not be destroyed. When he
is dead, the property comes back for his heirs
to inherit.
This trial of a dead man, this question of
'he forfeiture of property beyond the life of
the party, this visiting it upon the innocent
babe, is a thing which these times have for the
first time produced here; and now for the first
time do we hear it announced that the sins of
the father, if sins he has committed, shall go
down to a remote generation of children;
and that without one word being said in his
defence, by counsel, and without giving him
any of the rights guaranteed by the Consti-
tution to persons charged with crime.
Mr. STIRLING. I am willing to accept this
portion of the amendment. I will add, by
general consent to my amendment the words
"and then only on conviction "
There was no objection.
Mr. CLARKE. I understand that the doubt
in regard to the Constitution goes to the very .
doctrine I am now combatting, that you can
convict a man after he is dead, and after his
body is returned, dust to dust and ashes to
ashes. This doctrine that after a man is
dead you can convict him —
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. Whose doctrine is that?
Mr. CLARKE. The gentleman from Balti-
more city (Mr. Stirling) said that there was
doubt with respect, to the construction of the
Constitution, and that doctrine has been freely
asserted upon the floor of Congress, I was
told by Mr. Schley that he was called upon to
give an opinion upon this provision of the
Constitution, and the doctrine announced
upon the floor of Congress. That is what
the gentleman refers to; and in order to avoid
that ambiguity or doubt, it occurred to me
that this language would leave it plain and
clear.
Mr. STIRLING. I certainly bad no intention
to refer to that. I never beard that doctrine
until to-day.
Mr. CLARKE. The gentleman said it was
open to doubt, and that is the only doubt
that ever existed about it.
Mr. SPRING. If the gentleman undertakes
to decide his own opinions and mine too, that
may be so.
Mr. CLARKE. Where is the doubt then ?
1 ask the gentleman what doubt he referred to.
Mr. STIRLING. The doubt is this, as I un-
derstand it; and it is directly contrary to the
doubt the gentleman states. There is a doubt
whether that provision of the Constitution
means to prohibit Congress from passing a
law making an absolute forfeiture of estate in
punishment of crime upon conviction, or
merely meant to say that no attainder, that
is, no conviction made after the death of the
party, should absolutely forfeit his estate;
and that was the very difference of opinion
between the President and Congress. The |
