smaller. When laws are ambiguous, I would
make them certain. I hold it as a maxim of
law, and I know it is the opinion of Montes-
quieu, the commentator from whom the gen-
tleman from Charles (Mr. Edelin) has quo-
ted, that the stability of law depends more
upon the certainty of punishment than upon
the nature of that punishment. No matter
how severe the punishment stated in the law
may be, so long as there is ambiguity in it,
so long as there is a loophole in the law
through which professional acumen might
conduct the party safely, he has his hope
that he shall at last escape the scaffold. But
make punishment certain upon conviction,
for I want gentlemen to notice that all this
proceeding of the forfeiture of estate presup-
poses arrest, indictment, arraignment, trial,
conviction; the section we propose to put
into the Constitution of the State of Mary-
land presupposes all these things, the com-
mission of the crime, arrest for it, indict-
ment for it, prosecution and conviction for
it, and then the sentence of the law, without
ambiguity, speedy and sure. These are
some of the reasons that will induce me to
vote for the amendment of the gentleman
from Baltimore city, (Mr. Stirling.)
Mr. MILLER. I do not propose to prolong
this discussion very much, because my friend
from Charles county, (Mr. Edelen,) has an-
ticipated a great deal, I had intended to say,
upon this question. The question before this
Convention is, whether this body shall leave
it within the power of the. Legislature to
punish the offence of treason by the abso-
lute and unconditional forfeiture of all the
property of the offender, both real and per-
sonal—the forfeiture to be absolute and un-
conditional, not confined to the life of the
person convicted. The gentleman from Bal-
timore city (Mr. Stirling) says that the dif-
ference between us is but a small matter. I
do not so regard it. The propositions which
have been advanced, and the theories which
have been advocated upon the side of the
majority here, seem to me to involve ques-
tions of most momentous importance. The
power is to be given to the Legislature of
this State, by the proposed change in this
article of the bill of rights, if it sees fit, to
declare forfeited absolutely and forever the
entire estate of the party convicted of the
crime of treason.
Sir, these over-violent laws have never ac-
complished the purposes for which they were
framed. I will refer to a memorable instance
of the truth of that proposition,, as illustrat-
ing this matter, ' from the pages of Blackstone.
During the reign of Richard II. a
law was passed which made the bare purpose
and intent of killing or deposing the King,
without any overt act, to be high treason.
Now what does Blackstone say was the effect
of such a law?
''And yet so little effect have over-violent |
laws to prevent any crime, that within two
years afterwards this very prince was both
deposed and murdered, and) in the first year
of his successor's reign, an act was passed,
reciting 'that no man knew how he ought
to behave himself, to do, speak, or say, for
doubt of such pains of treason; and, there-
fore, it was accorded, that in no time to
come any treason be judged, otherwise than
was ordained by the statute of king Edward
the III.'"
That is the history of one instance of over-
violent laws being passed for the punishment
of this offence of treason, which I agree is
the highest offence which a citizen or sub-
ject can commit. Justice Story in his com-
mentary upon that clause of the Constitu-
tion about which so much has been said, de-
clares it to be bad policy to pass such laws
as these. What would be the result of such
a law as gentlemen here advocate? You
propose to forfeit absolutely all the estate
real and personal of the traitor, and deprive
his offspring to the remotest generation of
any chance of recovering his property, and
thus you make those descendants forever the
enemies of your Government, and instead of
bringing about peace, tranquility and pros-
perity, you have in that large class of per-
sons the perpetual and bitter enemies of your
Government. You continue the strife by
supplying and continuing the incentive to
make war upon it. Judge Story declares
and cites all that has been said in favor, all
that can be said in favor of this absolute and
unconditional forfeiture of property for the
crime of treason. He says—vol. 2, page 170,
Story on the Constitution :
" The reasons commonly assigned for these
severe punishments, beyond the mere for-
feiture 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 so-
cial rights, that of transmitting property to
others is deemed one of the chief and most
valuable. Moreover, such forfeitures, where-
by 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 punishment, but also by
his passions and natural affections; and will
interest every dependent and relation be has
to keep him from offending."
Has anything been said on this floor in fa-
vor of this absolute and unconditional for-
feiture beyond what Judge Story has here
stated? Has any argument of more force
been advanced than those he here recites?
And what is his comment upon them?
' ' But this view of the subject is wholly
unsatisfactory. It looks only to the offender
himself, and is regardless of his innocent
posterity. It really operates as a posthumous
punishment upon them; and compels them
to bear not only the disgrace naturally at- |
