"Be it therefore enacted by the General
Assembly of Maryland, That if any subject
or inhabitant of this State shall, within or
without the same, and if any person what-
ever, being an inhabitant of any other Of the
United States, shall, within this State, levy
war against the United States, or any of
them, or shall adhere to any person bearing
arms, or employed in the service of Great
Britain, against the United States, or any of
them, or shall afford such persons, or any of
them, any aid or comfort or shall give them
or any of them, or any subject of Great Brit-
ain, any intelligence of the warlike prepara-
tions or designs of the United States, or any
of them, and shall thereof be convicted in
the general court of this State, or shall stand
mule, or peremptorily challenge above the
number of twenty of the pannel, shall be ad-
judged guilty of treason against this State,
and shall suffer death without the benefit of
clergy, find forfeit all the estate which be had
at the time of the commission of the crime,
to the use of this State; and the several
crime's aforesaid shall receive the same con-
struction (here defining the idea of those
who legislated for the crisis of 1776) that
have been given to such of said crimes as are
enumerated in the statute of Edward the
Third, commonly called the statute of treat-
sons."
"Section 3. And be it enacted, That if any
subject or inhabitant of this State, having
knowledge of the actual commission of any
of the crimes aforesaid, above declared to be
treason, shall conceal the same, and shall not,
as soon as conveniently may be, disclose and
make the same known to the Governor, or
some of the Judges or Justices of this State
for the time being, such person, on convic-
tion thereof in the general court, shall be
adjudged guilty of misprision of treason, and
shall forfeit all the estate which he had at the
time of the commission of the crime, to the
use of the State."
Mr. MILLER. I am perfectly familiar with
that act
Mr. SANDS. I know you are; but I wanted
to call attention to the fact that here, in this
hall, during the times that tried men's souls,
our fathers legislated just as we propose our
Legislature shall have power to legislate.
Mr. MILLER. The law of 1777 was passed
in the midst of the Revolution, when we were
waging a war against a foreign enemy; when
a foreign nation was undertaking to subjugate
us and hold us to an allegiance which; by the
Declaration of Independence, we had thrown
off. It was against persons who still hold to an
allegiance to the Crown, and who were still
living in the colonies, that those laws were
passed, in that time of civil commotion
Mr. SANDS. Just as now.
Mr. MILLER. But soon after the passage of
those laws Maryland wiped them from her
statute book, and so tar as she could do so, re- |
stored to the descendants of those whose prop-
erty had been thus confiscated, all their rights
under the law. But that case has no applica-
tion whatever to our present condition. We
are now engaged in a civil war, a fratricidal
war of brother against brother; not defend-
ing ourselves against a foreign invasion or the
attacks of a foreign enemy. And if we wish
ever to attain a condition of peace and quiet-
ude in this country, that the memory of those
bloody times shall pass away from the minds
of men, let us in our legislation rather follow
the dictates of civilized and Christian charity,
than the precedents of revolutionary times
such as have been cited I might refer to
many such acts which were passed during
that period, but which have no application
whatever to our condition now. The very
men who participated in the passing of those
laws, as soon as the conflict was over, went
to the Convention of 1787 and assisted in
framing this very Constitution of the United
State's, in which they declared that forfeiture
should not extend beyond the life of the per-
son attained.
And we may gather some useful lessons from
the history of the legislation of England upon
this subject. At the common law the forfeiture
was absolute and unconditional of all estate,
in fee or in tail, held by the party who was
attaunted, or convicted of treason. But from
early times the statutes of England began to
modify the common law in that respect. Even
when there was a pretender to the throne of
England, after the Stuarts been expelled,
and were waging a war to recover 'heir rights,
a law was passed in the reign of Queen Anne
by the British Parliament that declared that
from and after the death of the then preten-
der, there should be no forfeiture for treason
beyond the life or lives of the party or par-
lies attainted. I have taken the pains to extract
that law from an old statute book. It
declares that—
"No attainder for treason should extend
to the disinheriting of any heir, nor to the
prejudice of the right or title of any person
or persons, other than the right of the offender
or offenders, during his, hers or their natural
lives only."
By the passage of an act in the reign of
George 11.) the operation of forfeiture beyond
the life of the person attainted was continued
until after the death of the sons of the pretender.
But history shows that long since,
as the last descendant of the Stuarts has gone
to his long home, the more humane principles
of law govern the statutes of England.
1 had proposed, also, to show why it was
that in the Constitution of the United States
they we're so careful to define whit treason
is how it. should be proved, and how it should
be punished. My friend from Charles county,
(Mr. Edelin), however, has gone over that
ground pretty fully, and I will only say that
those provisions were incorporated into the |
