a case came up, unless I was very well satis-
fied of the guilt of the party, I should vote to
return to him the forfeited estate.
Mr. CLARKE. Will the gentleman permit
me one moment? If a traitorous son comes
forward to take possession of the property, is
not be in a position where he can betaken up,
tried and convicted as a traitor, and have the
property taken from him and confiscated as it
was from his father?
Mr. SANDS. Out of all the men in Mary-
land who I believe have rendered assistance,
by giving money or otherwise, to aid this
rebellion, I do not believe any court or prosecuter
in the State will convict one of them.
Mr. CLARKE. The gentleman believes that
a great many have done these things, and he
has denounced them at the ballot box and
every where else, while they were just as loyal
as ho is. His opinion is no measure of the
acts of any other man
Mr. SANDS resumed. My opinion is just as
good as that of any other man. I am not
speaking of denouncing .a whole class which
I know to exist in Maryland, if the gentleman
does not know it; but I am slating what I
believe to be good law, and I am advocating
a wholesome restriction upon these gentle-
men, and I only regret that it is not in my
power to produce the proofs in some of the
cases.
I say that I believe a sovereign State has
the absolute right to forfeit every right pos-
sessed by a traitor. I say further, that it the
State chooses to give his family what was his,
it is the act of the State in ifs generosity, and
not upon legal or even moral considerations.
But coming back to the point which was my
argument Saturday, I reassert that no Gov-
ernment can exist except upon the safe and
natural foundation of allegiance. And I say
that all the protection that Government owes
to life, to property, to anything that is a
man's, depends upon the measure of his al-
legiance to that Government. If he has
utterly renounced it, his property, all that is
his, in strict right is gone. But. if we choose
in our legislative capacity, or in our capacity
as a Convention, to say, "No; the plain legal,
logical deduction shall not be carried so far
as lo crush innocent parties, no conviction of
treason shall attaint so as necessarily lo work
corruption of blood," for the shelter of all
these innocent parties, that is the State's
generosity. That is the State's leniency, and
cot a claim which the traitor or any one who
takes his place has of right, either moral or
legal, upon the Government against which
he has committed treason. It is impossible
that it should be so, any more than that the
lesser should contain the greater. If protec-
tion rests solely upon allegiance, then if a
man quits his allegiance, must not the pro-
tection quit him as absolutely"
Mr. CLARKE. Do I understand the gentle-
man as contending that under the Constitu- |
tion of the United State?, you have the right
to forfeit property beyond the life of the party
convicted?
Mr. SANDS. Yes, sir.
Mr. CLARKE, You have the right to do it
under this provision of the Constitution?
Mr. SANDS. Yes, sir: just that right.
" Congress shall have power to declare the
punishment of treason; but no attainder
of treason shall work," "shall work" of
itself, without the independent action of Con-
gress in the matter, from a stern necessity,
" shall work corruption," I do not consider
that to take away the power of Congress to
punish treason because that cower is expressly
given in terms, in the preceding part of the
cause, "Congress shall have power to de-
clare the punishment of treason."
Mr. CLARKE, Do you not regard the last
part as a limitation upon the power of Con-
gress to declare the punishment of treason ?
Mr. SANDS. Yes, sir: but conviction shall
not work, of necessity, corruption of blood
or forfeiture.
Mr. CLARKE, But has Congress the power
to make the forfeiture extend beyond the life
of the party convicted ?
Mr. SANDS. I will express my opinion now
if you desire it. upon that point. I say that
under this constitutional provision, treason
does not of necessity, of itself, in very fact,
work absolute forfeiture.
Mr. CLARKE. Independent of Constitutional
provisions, treason does not work anything.
Mr. SANDS resumed. I should prefer to
make my argument, and let the gentleman
answer it in his turn. The gentleman asked
me for my opinion upon this subject, and I
want to give it to him, and I don't care if it
goes through the length and breadth of the
land. I say that I do not consider this 2d
clause of the 3d section of the 3d article to
take from Congress the right to punish treason
with absolute forfeiture. I say that, and I
say it upon the very terms of the paragraph
itself: " Congress shall have power to declare
the punishment of treason." That is unre-
stricted, general, unlimited. But, says the
Constitution of the United States, in its clem-
ency, in its magnanimity, in its majesty,
For the sake of these innocent women and
children, we will not have it that conviction
for treason shall absolutely work, by una-
voidable necessity, corruption of blood and
absolute forfeiture, except that it shall work
this during the life of the person convicted.
It shall absolutely work it for that time, but
not alter of necessity ;not talking from Con-
gress the right which the preceding section
gives it, to declare the punishment of treason.
That is my opinion. Gentlemen can have it
for what it is worth. I am willing to abide
by it and maintain it.
So far as I am concerned, I want this doc-
trine embodied in the Constitution we are
framing for the people of Maryland. I want |
