timore city who has last spoken (Mr. Cush-
ing) has made some allusion to the law as it
exists in other countries; and for the bene-
fit of him and the gentleman from Caroline
(Mr. Todd) I will now say that inasmuch as
they are so anxious to incorporate the pro-
posed amendment of the gentleman from
Baltimore city (Mr. Stirling) into the Con-
stitution of Maryland, that if he wants to
make it conform to the Federal Constitution,
he should vote for the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Prince George's, (Mr.
Clarke; ) narrowing down and restricting the
forfeiture for treason to the life of the offend-
er only. Now what has been the legislative
exposition of this provision of the Constitu-
tion? It is doubtless known to many mem-
bers present that in 1790 Congress passed an
act in which they expressly said under this
provision of the Constitution that it should
not work corruption of blood or forfeiture
beyond the life of the party convicted, and
declared the punishment of treason lo be
simply death by hanging. [Act of 13th
April, 1790, ch. 36.]
To come down to England and other coun-
tries to which reference his been made by
the gentleman from Baltimore city, (Mr.
Cushing,) how do we find the law there?
Have they not long since, under the influ-
ence of the progress and advancement of the
age in which we live, wiped out this thing
from their statute books? I believe a century
ago a statue was passed in the reign of some
one of the sovereigns of England, (whose
name I cannot now recall,) narrowing down
and restricting this forfeiture to the life of
the party offending. Even in England now
the descendants of the party convicted have
not visited upon their heads any of the sins
of the traitor. There has been some recent
legislation in our own country on this sub-
ject, which I commend particularly to the
attention of my friend from Howard, (Mr.
Sands, ) who professed yesterday to be such
a warm supporter of the present head of the
country, who said that he was a Lincoln
man, that he was for "Old Abe." Has it
escaped his memory that Congress in 1862
passed a law confiscating the estates of rebels,
and forfeiting them for a longer period than
the life of the offenders, and that the Presi-
dent of the United States took the opposite
ground upon this provision of the Constitu-
tion to that which he now takes and refused
to sign the bill until Congress had passed the
explanatory resolution of July 17, 1862, in
which they use these words :
'' Nor shall any punishment or proceedings
under said act be so construed as to work
a forfeiture of the real estate of the offender
beyond his natural life."
What is proposed to be done here to-day?
To go on in the path of advancement in which
we have entered, and to tread no step
backward? No, sir. It is gravely proposed |
to inaugurate and engraft on our organic
law a principle which has been long since
discarded by the intelligence of the whole
civilized world? I am not disposed, I do
not feel that I would bejustified in consuming
the precious time of the Convention by enter-
ing into any argument to convince gentlemen
how unfounded in reason, how unjust in
its operation would be the proposed amend-
ment of the gentleman from Baltimore city,
(Mr. Stirling.)
For two days last week, and I think part
of a third, the echoes of this hall resounded
with the eloquence of gentlemen—the mem-
ber from Baltimore city (Mr. Stirling) lead-
ing the advance, and my friends from the
other side of the chamber following in his
footsteps, in language loud and vehement,
against the right of the Legislature of Mary-
land to impose a capitation tax, as " grievous
and oppressive." These words resounded in
our ears many a time, and not many of us
will soon forget how grievous and oppressive
it was said to be for the Legislature to im-
pose a capitation tax. I agreed with these
gentlemen, and although my views were not
I expressed to the Convention, they were ex-
pressed upon the records of the Convention,
which will show my vote recorded with the
majority upon every one of the propositions
introduced upon that subject looking to the
retention ill the Constitution of the restric-
tion on the Legislature covered by the amend-
ment that was introduced by the gentletman
from Harford (Mr. Galloway) and afterwards
adopted by the Convention.
I put it now to gentlemen, if that was the
case; if the terms grievous and oppressive
could be then used with truth, what language
known to the English vocabulary shall I
adopt to express in terms fit and becoming
the proposition now before us. Is it not
monstrous? is it not opposed to all princi-
ples of right and justice? The innocent child,
irresponsible being—the wife, who perchance
at one time has whispered in his ear salutary
words of warning against the traitorous
course upon which he was about to embark.
Are we to visit upon them the crime of the
erring husband and father? This question
goes further. You put the seal of condem-
nation not only upon the wife and innocent
child, lout upon the child yet sleeping in its
mother's womb. Ere that child has seen the
light you fix upon its innocent head the seal
of condemnation. Yes, sir; this rule would
extend its operation to posthumous children.
The day they come into being after the death
of their parent, they would have a share in
the inhumanity which the gentlemen who
advocate this amendment are seeking to en-
graft upon this Magna Charta of our rights.
I do not propose to go any more at length
into these topics. I am content to let this
proposition stand in the Constitution as it
was adopted in 1850. If the majority of the |
