and children, as innocent as the wife and chil-
dren of any other individual in the State,
shall be made to suffer from deprivation and
want, in addition to all the disgrace the law
can inflict upon the offences of that husband,
over whom they had no control, with whose
actions, perhaps, they had no sympathy, and
with regard to whose conduct, perhaps, they
were utterly opposed to it; in short, to sum
it all up, in regard to whose actions, they
were just as innocent of any offence, either
against the law of God or the law of man,
as any other children or wife in the district
I say, sir, that my vote shall not sanction
such a doctrine.
Mr. SANDS. I think I fully comprehend
the views of the gentleman from Baltimore
city, the chairman of the committee, (Mr.
Stirling,) and I think I fully comprehend the
meaning of this 2d clause of the 3d section
of the 3d article of the Constitution of the
United States.
"Congress shall have power to declare the
punishment of treason; but no attainder of
treason shall work corruption of blood, or
forfeiture, except during the life of the per-
son attained."
In the first place, what is treason? what is
the nature of the crime? It is abjuring the
government to which allegiance is owed, and
it is of course abandoning all right to the
protection of that government. All govern-
ments are founded upon these primary ideas;
allegiance and protection, looking at the
matter purely as a matter of law, indepen-
dent of all party considerations, these two
ideas lie at the bottom of all government,
allegiance and protection. The one rests
upon the other, and can no more exist with-
out it than a house can stand without founda-
tion on the air. That is plain law.
Now what is meant by this language spe-
cifically used in this article? " No attainder
of treason shall work," i e, of necessity, "cor-
ruption of blood," so as to cut off innocent
partics, the innocent wife and the innocent
child. That is the Constitution of the United
States, and that is precisely what I under-
stand the gentleman from Baltimore City
(Mr. Stirling,) to desire should be the Constitu-
tion of Maryland; that no attainder of trea-
son shall, of necessity, work corruption of
blood; because that is the legal construction
of this term "work," that that shall of ne-
cessity be the consequence of attainder; ex-
cept during the life of the person attained
It shall work it through that life; but it
shall not work corruption of blood, of neces-
sity; that is, if a party is convicted of the
crime of treason, it shall not, of necessity,
follow that his innocent wife and children
shall be deprived of the property which was
his.
I then put the other case. Suppose, these
children, that may be grown sons, hardy
men, capable of doing a variety of things |
in furtherance of the treason. Suppose you
say the contrary, that no matter What may
be the circumstances, the property shall go
to the children. Is such a doctrine as that to
be engrafted upon the Constitution of Mary-
land ?
Mr. MILLER. Are not those very sons
themselves subject to conviction of treason,
and forfeiture of their estate? This provi-
sion can only strike at the wife and babes,
who know nothing of treason, and have not
aided it.
Mr. SANDS resumed: You must find that
son before you can try him. You remember
Mrs. Glass's famous receipt for cooking ahare.
" First, catch the hare." You must catch
that son first; before you can try him. He
may be off on the very enterprise in which
his father lost his life. It may be impossible
to catch him; or, if he is caught, the govern-
ment may not be in condition to procure the
sort of evidence that will convict him, al-
though they may be morally certain that he
is a traitor. Will the gentleman have the
law stand thus, that in a case like that; if the
father is guilty—
Mr. CLARKE. Will the gentleman allow
me one question? I believe he is State's At-
torney for Howard County. I ask him, if he
had no evidence upon which to convict a party,
would he, as State's Attorney, ask a jury to
convict him upon moral certainty? That
surely is not the criminal law of our State.
Mr. SANDS. No, sir, I do not. I ask for
conviction in no case unless there is evi-
dence.
Mr. CLARKE. The gentleman said that if
there was no evidence, if the government had
none sufficient to convict, still, if there was
a moral certainty that the son was guilty, he
must suffer the loss of the estate.
Mr. SANDS. The gentleman accused me the
other day of being like a young colt. I will
not retort the accusation; but I must say,
when he makes a point he sticks to it with
great pertinacity.
Mr. CLARKE. I so understood the gen-
tleman.
Mr SANDS resumed: Will the gentleman
please to understand me now to say that when
a party is indicted before a jury, I never asked
them to convict him unless I believed him
guilty. I never did that. It is not my prac-
tice. Will the gentleman please to under-
stand me further to Bay that in making law
for the safety and peace of the State, I will
never agree to make the law so that if yon
cannot absolutely catch and convict the trait-
orous son, that son shall have the right to
come in and claim under the farther. I say
that he may come lo the Legislature as par-
ties may go to Congress, and say, " I am in-
nocent and here are my proofs; consider my
case and give me the benefit of what was my
traitorous sire's." And I say, also, that if I
were a member of the Legislature, and such |
