sitions advanced in his argument from Scrip-
ture. I leave him in the hands of the gen-
tleman from Kent (Mr. Chambers) and the
gentleman from Prince George's, (Mr.
Clarke.) I had hoped that the report from
the Committee on the Declaration of Rights,
following exactly in this respect the language
of the old Declaration of Rights, the Magna
Charta of the people of Maryland, would
have been adopted without any attempt on
either side of the House to engraft upon it
an amendment so widely differing from the
article as reported by the chairman of the
committee to this House, I had hoped it
might stand in its fullness, in it; integrity,
that no conviction should work corruption
of blood or forfeiture of estate. What
light has dawned upon the mind of the
chairman of the committee since he made
that report a fortnight ago? What addition-
al reasons exist now that did not exist then
he has not seen fit to tell us. I cannot an-
swer for any gentleman's motives. But I
proceed briefly to argue one or two proposi-
tions that have been argued—of law and not
of Scripture.
My friend from Howard, (Mr. Sands,) in
the course of his argument on yesterday,
made a great flourish of his opinion upon
this subject of Constitutional law. "I give,"
said he, "my opinion to this Convention.
I will not confine it to the limits of this Hall.
I am content that it shall go forth through the
broad extent of this land, and upon the wings
of electricity, that the world may know it."
Mr. SANDS, If the gentleman will permit
me I will suggest. that' my opinion was given
because it was asked for by the gentleman
from Prince George's (Mr. Clarke.) It was
not forced upon the Convention. It was
drawn from me,
Mr. EDELEN resumed. I understood him
to insist upon his interpretation of that arti-
cle in the Federal Constitution as the true
one; I understood the chairman of the com-
mittee to agree with him, and the gentleman
from Caroline (Mr. Todd) took the. same
ground upon that point. I now briefly call
the attention of the Convention to the words
of that article, intelligible not alone to gen-
tlemen whose business it has been to study
legal provisions and constitutions, but so
plain, and in such simple and positive lan-
guage that he who runs may read its illean-
ing. I will read from one of the ablest com-
mentaries on the Constitution of the. United
States. [3 Story, 169.]
"The third section of the fourth article
gives a constitutional definition of the crime
of treason, (which will be reserved for a
separate examination, ) and then provides :
" The. Congress shall have power to declare
the punishment of treason; but no attain-
der of treason shall work corruption of
blood, or forfeiture, except during the life
of the person attainted." |
Now apply the simple rule of interpreta-
tion to this section that we are to apply to
the construction of all laws, and all enact-
ments, that you must construe the whole
together, and not disconnect one part from
another, give to each word its full meaning
or import, "up res majis valeatquam pe-
reat," and it seems to me its construction is
clear beyond doubt or cavil.
Congress shall have power to declare
the punishment of treason With what
restriction? With what qualification?—
Congress shall have power to say that
a man who has committed treason and
been convicted thereof, shall be hanged
by the neck. They have the power to say
': that he shall be incarcerated in the peniten-
tiary. They may go further than that, and
in the language of Blackstone, quoting the
common law, they may enact
1. That the offender be drawn to the gallows,
and not be carried or allowed to walk.
2. That he be hanged by the neck, and
cut down alive. 3. That his entrails be
fallen out and burned, while he is yet alive.
4. That his head be cut off. 5. That his
body be divided into four parts.
They may provide all this, and the only objection
to it would be that such punishments
would not be in keeping with the civilization
and humanity of the age in which we live.
But they cannot decree the forfeiture of estate
beyond the life of the offender. They can-
not tread that ground. Any act of Congress
made in contravention of that provision
would be unconstitutional and void, and
would be so declared by any court in this
country. I will proceed to read the com-
ments of Judge Story, to whom my friend
from Kent (Mr. Chambers) has referred :
" The propriety of investing the National
Government with authority to punish the
crime of treason against the United States
could never become a question with any per-
sons who deemed the National Government
worthy of creation or presumption. If the
power had not been expressly granted, it
must have been implied, unless all the pow-
ers of the National Government might be
put at defiance and prostrated with impuni-
ty. Two motives probably concurred in in-
troducing it, as an express power; one was,
not to leave it open to implication, whether
it was to be exclusively punishable with
death according to the known rule of the
common law, and with the barbarous accom-
paniments pointed out by it; but to confide
the punishment to the discretion of Con-
gress, The other was to impose some limi-
tation upon the nature and extent of the
punishment, so that it should not work cor-
ruption of blood or forfeiture beyond the
life of the offender."
That is what Judge Story says upon that
point, and it seems to me that it surely puts
that point at rest. The gentleman from Bal- |
