Convention determine that in addition to
that there shall also be some forfeiture for
treason, I hope still that we may confine this
forfeiture within the limits prescribed by the
amendment of the gentleman from Prince
George's, (Mr. Clarke.) I will conclude by
reading from Judge Story what he says upon
the reasons upon which the law of olden
times, the common law, was founded. At
one period of the history of England, the
same punishment was visited upon the man
who conspired against the life of the king as
upon the humblest citizen who was convicted
of stealing a chicken—the punishment of
death. I will show you what Judge Story
has to say of the grounds upon which it was
attempted to place this right of forfeiture be-
yond the life of the party at the expense of
innocent offspring;
''The reasons (says Judge Story) com-
monly assigned for these severe punishments,
beyond the mere forfeiture of the life of the
party attainted, are these: By committing
treason the party has broken his original
bond of allegiance, and forfeited his social
rights. Among these social rights, that of
transmitting property to others is deemed
one of the chief and most valuable. More-
over, such forfeitures, whereby the posterity
of the offender must suffer as well as himself,
will help to restrain a man, not only by the
sense of his duty, and dread of personal pun-
ishment, but also by his passions and natural
affections; and will interest every dependent
and relation he has to keep him from offend-
ing, But this view of the subject is wholly
unsatisfactory. It looks only to the offender
himself, and is regardless of his innocent pos-
terity. It really operates as a posthumous
punishment upon them, and compels them to
bear not only the disgrace naturally attendant
upon such flagitious crimes, but takes from
them the common rights and privileges en-
joyed by all other citizens, where they are
wholly innocent, and however remote they
may be in the lineage from the first offender.
It surely is enough for society to take the life
of the offender, as a just punishment of his
crime, without taking from his offspring and
relatives that property which may be the only
means or saving them from poverty ana ruin.
It is bad policy too; for it cuts off all the
attachments which these unfortunate victims
might otherwise feel for their own govern-
ment, and prepares them to engage in any
other service, by which their supposed inju-
ries may be redressed, or their hereditary
hatred gratified. Upon these and similar
grounds it may be presumed, that the clause
was introduced into the original draft of the
Constitution, and after some amendments it
was adopted without any apparent resist-
ance."
I call the attention of members to the fact
that when this provision was first reported
to the Convention which prepared the federal |
Constitution, in 1788, it was precisely or
nearly in the identical language in which we
now find it incorporated therein. So agreed
were the members of that Convention upon
this subject, that although they differed wide-
ly upon other matters, this proposition was
engrafted upon the federal Constitution with-
out resistance and without any argument
whatever. Judge Story proceeds :
"By the laws since passed by Congress, it
is declared that no conviction or judgment,
for any capital or other offences, shall work
corruption of blood, or any forfeiture of es-
tate. The bistory of other countries abun-
dantly proves that one of the strongest in-
centives to prosecute offences, as treason, has
been the chance of sharing in the plunder of
the victims. Rapacity has been thus stimulated
to exert itself in the service of the most
corrupt tyranny; and tyranny has been thus
i furnished with new opportunities of indulg-
ing its malignity and revenge; of gratifying
its envy of the rich, and good; and of in-
creasing its means to reward favorites and
secure retainers for the worst deeds."
Mr. President, I am done. If there be
those in this Convention who will not re-
spect the teachings of the able interpreter of
constitutional law whom I have just cited,
there is small chance of their being influenced
by anything that I might say. I conclude
with the words of warning addressed by
Montesquieu in his Spirit of the Laws, ''that
this offence of treason, more than any other,
should be rendered fixed and certain, for
if left uncertain and indeterminate, it will
speedily carry any country under the yoke
of arbitrary and despotic power."
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. I bad not designed to
offer any remarks upon the question before
the Convention, and would not do so now
but for the apprehension that if we surveyed
the ground carefully, to see wherein we are
agreed, and wherein we differ, we should find
that we are, after all, contending about a
very small matter. The amendment pro-
posed by my colleague (Mr. Stirling) is this :
"No conviction shall work corruption of
blood, nor shall there be any forfeiture of
the estate of any person for any crime except
treason, ana then only on conviction."
The gentleman from Prince George's (Mr.
Clarke) has moved to amend that by adding
" which forfeiture of estate shall only con-
tinue during the life of the person convicted."
My chief objection to' that addition is that
it leaves the question, in my judgment, am-
biguous, which would be clear and positive
without the addition. The simple question
is one of restriction of the Legislature. Prac-
tically the Legislature of Maryland or of any
other State has very little to do with treason.
At the time of the adoption of our original
Constitution, to which the gentleman who
has just taken his seat has referred, we were
in an entirely different situation from that |
