The question is simply as to whether the
heirs shall be entitled upon the commission
of treason, and conviction, resulting in the
taking of the life of the traitor, to inherit his
properly. The object of the forfeiture or the
property of the traitor seems to have origi-
nated in the desire in the minds of the law-
givers, to prevent, if possible, the commis-
sion of the act which is to be punished.
There are many men in this country traitors,
who, if they had believed that by the laws of
the United States their property as well as
their lives were at stake, would have hesi-
tated ere they committed treason, and entail-
ed what gentlemen are pleased to call pun-
ishment upon their families. But trusting to
the leniency of the jury to save their lives,
and trusting to their interpretation of the
Constitution of the United States to save their
property, they have supposed that with com-
parative safety they could commit treason.
Hence we find to-day a large portion of our
country plunged hotly into treason by the
operation of that style of argument.
Gentlemen have quoted the Constitution of
the United States as under their interpreta-
tion prohibiting us from levying a penalty
for treason against the State of Maryland.
Gentlemen seem to think that we are to be
governed in this by the law of the United
States, and that therefore our Constitution
must agree verbatim with that of the United
States. If the people of Maryland choose to
decree that they will take a broader view of
the iniquity of treason, and regard it as of a
darker dye than it appeared to those who
framed the Constitution of the United States,
so long as there is nothing in the legislation
we propose which conflicts with the Consti-
tution of the United States, I do not see why
there should be any difficulty.
One gentleman has reasoned that by such
a process we are giving to the Constitution
of the United States the interpretation that
you can try a man after he is dead. Anoth-
er has appealed to you to know whether you
would punish the wife and the children, and
has given us to understand that in general
cases they may be or are ignorant and with-
out influence over the acts of the husband. I
must say to gentlemen that we must legislate
for the future in the light of the past. Even
on his own ground, we have not found wives
ignorant, nor have we found them without
influence. Perhaps half the treason in our
land may be traced to the wives and the
mothers. I do not offer this as an argument
in chief, but as a fair rebuttal of the argu-
ment for mercy on the ground of ignorance
and on the ground of want of influence. We
know the fact that the wives and children of
traitors are not without knowledge, and we
believe that they are not without influence
in their counsels, and trust therefore that we
shall at least meet the sentiments of the peo-
ple, that treason should deprive a man of all |
that he has, both of life and of property; if
haply we may keep thereby any more from
treason, or if we cannot, that we may at
least punish them.
And If any hereafter shall commit treason
against the State of Maryland, let there be
no possible variety of interpretation as to the
law of Maryland on that point. Let the man
who shall hereafter commit treason against
the State of Maryland do it with his eyes
open, and knowing that he is in all proba-
bility sacrificing all. We have a right to
use the past so far as it may guide us in leg-
islating for the future. We have a right to
look back and see whether a doubtful inter-
pretation has aided treason. If it has aided
treason, in the case of any other State or of
the United States, or of any other country,
we have a right to learn a lesson from it, and
apply it to our own case. We are not here
to confine ourselves to the light shed by the
Constitution of Maryland alone. We have
a right to take the whole range of the history
of every land and every people.
I think the question resolves itself into the
opinion of the members of this Convention.
If they consider treason as a crime of so dark
a dye that the utmost punishment that the
law can inflict upon the individual, and re-
quiring of the lawgiver the imposition of the
extremist penalties, they will vote for abso-
lute forfeiture of the estate. But if, unin-structed
by the past, we have not learned
that treason is a grave crime; if we have
been taught that treason is a little thing, a
thing to be committed, then repented of, and
then pardoned; it is in the power of the
Convention so to express its views in the
formation of the organic law of this State.
Mr. EDELEN. I belong to that class of
members composing this body, who in the
general course of action would be disposed
to forbear any discussion of the questions
brought before the body for their consider-
ation, and content themselves with listening
to the arguments offered on either side and
voting according to the best of their judgment,
for the interest of the State. But the proposi-
tions which have been advanced before this
body in this discussion, particularly those
advanced yesterday by my friend from
Howard, (Mr. Sands,) and endorsed, as I
understand, by the chairman of the commit-
tee, (Mr. Stirling,) are so utterly and en-
tirely opposed to what I conceive to be the
true theory of the principles of our Consti-
tution, State as well as Federal, so little in
harmony with the civilization and humani-
ty of the age, that I feel that I should be
recreant to the trust which my county has
in part confided to me, if I did not raise a
protest against these encroachments upon
the true theory of government, as well by
my voice as by my vote.
I will not follow the gentleman from Car-
oline (Mr. Todd) in reference to the propo- |
