penalties, reaching not only to the individual
himself, but to those who should come after
him, to the third and fourth generations.
What was idolatry under the Jewish dispen-
sation? I say, sir, that it was treason, and
the only treason known to the Jewish law.
God was their great Legislator. He was the
great Executive. He was the great embodi-
ment of the Judiciary, and of every system
and part of that government. It all concen-
trated in Him. Hence idolatry, which was
the recognition of another God not known to
their law, another authority not recognized
by their government, was treason, and the
only treason which could exist under the
Jewish dispensation; and it was with espe-
cial reference to the sin of treason that God
enacted those fearful penalties.
That I understand is the question under
consideration before this Convention to-day,
covered by the amendment of the gentleman
from Baltimore city, (Mr.Stirling.) If it was
consistent and in harmony with the princi-
ples of divine government to enact a law,
the penalty of which should reach not only
to the individual transgressor, but to suc-
ceeding generations; and if that general
principle has been incorporated in the principles
of Christianity and been re-enacted by
our Saviour, then they hold good to-day,
and are as applicable to the circumstances
that surround us to-day as they were under
the circumstances that existed at the time
these fearful words were littered.
I think that those who met in Convention
to frame the Constitution of the General Gov-
ernment, the organic law of the nation, did
right when they put into that organic law a
provision specifying that the consequences to
the traitor should foe the forfeiture of his es-
tate without any conditions or qualifications
whatever. I am in favor of conforming, in
our organic law, to the organic law of the
United States Government. I am therefore
in favor of the adoption of the amendment
of the gentleman from Baltimore city.
It is not to bewondered at that gentlemen
should labor to screen their friends from the
consequences which legally attach to their
insane treason. But the question for us to
consider is: What is right? What will coni-
form our organic law upon this subject to the
fundamental principle recognized in the Con-
stitution of the United States, and emanating
from the fountain of all good government?
I say, for one, that the amendment of the
gentleman from Baltimore city will conform
our organic law to the organic law of the
United States, and will conform it also to
the generally recognized principles which lie
at the foundation of all good government. I
shall therefore vote against the amendment
of the gentleman from Prince George's (Mr.
Clarke) and for the adoption of the amend-
ment of the gentleman from Baltimore city
(Mr. Stirling.) |
Mr. CHAMBERS. I do not mean to go into
an elaborate argument unnecessarily upon
the remarks of the reverend gentleman. I
will only say that I am not quite willing to
remain under the imputation of adding to
texts of Scripture. It is not my business to
devote my whole life to the study of Scrip-
ture, as it is the duty of that gentleman,
who however I see can spare a portion of his
time to devote to politics, leaving gome other
person to attend to the appropriate duties of
his profession in 'ministering to the souls
committed to his care. However zealously
he may have studied that holy book he has
introduced here, he has evidently not quite
so studiously examined the Constitution of
the United States when he tells us that the
Constitution of the United States allows the
forfeiture of the property of the traitor with-
out any qualification. if the gentleman will
spare another portion of Iris time from the
special labors of his calling to read the Con-
stitution, be will find that directly the re-
verse is true. The Constitution of the United
States has carefully prohibited the confisca-
tion of property in just so many words.
Judge Story says in his treatise on the Con-
stitution, and certainly he' is as well versed
in the law as the gentleman in his profession,
that it has imposed on Congress two limitations
on the punishment of treason. Those
limitations are: 1st. There shall be no cor-
ruption of blood. 2d. There shall be no
confiscation of property. I merely rose to
correct the gentleman who has attempted to
correct your humble servant.
Mr. CLARKE. I do not rise to add anything
to what has been said in reference to the
statement made by the gentleman from Kent
(Mr. Chambers.) I agree perfectly with him
in that statement. Although it has not been
my avocation to expound the Scriptures,
among men, I try to read the Bible, and I
try to act up to the principles and precepts
of it. I am not by my calling so thoroughly
conversant with the Bible as the gentleman
from Caroline (Mr. Todd) may be supposed
to be, if he carries out properly the duties of
a good shepherd over his flock; but I would
quietly ask him here, since he has brought
the holy book and read to us to-day from its
sacred pages, where is his flock?
Mr. TODD. if the gentleman desires an
answer, I will give it now. I have no pastoral
charge, and have not had for three
years.
Mr. CLARKE. Then you have devoted your-
self to politics for three years ?
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. I rise to a point of or-
der; that this is entirely irrelevant to the
matter before the Convention.
Mr. CLARKE, I merely wish,, in reference
to the scriptural injunction which has been
quoted in vindication of the amendment of
the gentleman from Baltimore city, to read
the 18th chapter of Ezekiel. |
