we occupy at present. The national Consti-
tution had not then been formed. The dif-
ferent Colonies then growing into States were
not yet recognized by the mother country as
free. They passed treason laws, and they
passed Constitutions restraining the punish-
ment of treason, as was right. But when the
National Constitution was adopted, when
the National Government took cognizance of
this crime, and hedged up its punishment
the thing became practically in the State
Constitutions a dead letter. The law did
indeed remain upon the statute book of Mary-
land a law against treason, but it stood there
a forgotten law. There were no prosecutions
under it. No attempt was made to enforce
it, and so far as I know it was never adverted
to until the Legislature met in this hall in
1862. Then a new treason law was passed
But practically that law has had no effect
and has accomplished nothing; but the pun-
ishment of treason is left in the hands of the
National Government.
We are now framing a Constitution for the
State. We are to agree that under the laws
of the State no conviction shall work cor-
ruption of blood. We all agree that great
as is the crime of treason, and I believe gen-
tlemen upon all sides agree that it is the
greatest of crimes, no conviction of treason
shall work corruption of blood; which means
nothing more or less than that it shall no
deprive the heir of the right to inherit from
or through his deceased ancestor who is con-
victed of treason. He may inherit from him
He may inherit through him. For example
suppose the day after the death of the person
convicted of treason the father of the person
so convicted and so deceased should die pos-
sessed of a large estate. With this enact
ment, with this provision, upon which we
are all agreed, the children and heirs of the
deceased convicted of treason could inherit
from that grandfather, through the deceased
convicted. To that we all agree,
Then we come to the other question: Shall
it work a forfeiture of the estate of the person
convicted? This is a vague term—forfeiture
of estate. The treason law of Maryland ad-
mits no forfeiture of the estate of a person
except it be that portion of the estate which
is personal property, of course, which was
used as the means of committing the specific
treason. The purchased arms, ammunition
anything to aid the person actually engaged
in the commission of the treason, were for-
feited by that law to the State, as a necessary
consequence of the conviction. I apprehend
that the gentleman from Prince George's
(Mr. Clarke,) or any other gentleman who
advocates his amendment, does not design to
take the ground that the addition of this
clause would prevent the forfeiture of such
property from being a complete and final for-
feiture. It cannot be otherwise. If that
personal property is forfeited to the State as |
a part of the punishment of the crime, it is
sold by the State, and the proceeds go into
the State treasury, like any. other fine. 1
suppose no person designed that the heirs, in
case of the death of the person so convicted,
and whose property was so forfeited, should
have the right, upon his death, to reclaim
from the State the proceeds of that property
so forfeited.
The question is merely this: Suppose in
addition to that property he had real estate
which was declared forfeited as a consequence
of the crime of treason. Shall that forfeiture
be final and conclusive, or shall that property
upon his death revert to his heirs? I profess
myself utterly unable to see where the great
distinction is, in this matter, between real
estate and personal property. A man dies
convicted of treason, with the sum of $2,000
in real estate. Another man is convicted of
precisely the same treason, and he is worth
precisely the same amount in personal estate.
Both have been arrested and convicted of
treason. Both have been fined, as they may
be at the discretion of the law. One of them
has personal property, and pays his fine.
The other baa no personal property—but his
estate can be condemned and sold to pay the
fine so imposed. Shall the heirs of the man
who was possessed of personal property, and
who paid the fine, have no right of reclama-
tion against the State; and shall the heirs of
the other, who chanced to have his property
in real estate, have the right to reclaim that
property ?
That is all the distinction. Gentlemen
may talk as they please about the punishment
of innocent children and dependent families.
You cannot avoid that; for wherever there
is a punishment inflicted in the very nature
of a fine of any kind, those intimately con-
nected suffer more or less with the person.
Shall the suffering be made different because
the property happened to be personal pro-
perty, than if it happened to be real property ?
1 do not see the force of the distinction. The
fine, if there be a fine imposed, I understand
should be an absolute fine. The law does
not attempt to confiscate any specific pro-
perty. The only punishment or forfeiture,
unless in the case of munitions of war, is in
the nature of a fine; and from whatever
source the money is drawn that is to pay that
fine, whether from personal property or real
property, the hardship, if there be a hardship,
is after all the same. If there be an effort to
adopt legislatively here a punishment for
treason against the State, of which the Na-
tional Government cannot take action, because
over its acts and over treason against it we
can have no control, if there should be such
a crime against the State, where is the hard-
ship of punishing it?
This may give rise here, as it has in Con-
gress during the present session, and during
the last year, to a great discussion about |
