Constitution simply for the purpose of defin-
ing with accuracy what had, in some respects,
been left indefinite by the statute of Edward
the Third, The Constitution declares that
treason shall consist of only two things: the
levying of war against the United States, and
adhering to their enemies, giving them aid
and comfort. It then provides how the crime
shall be proved. In England, when the Parliament
desired to reach a person who could
not be reached in courts of justice by reason
of failure of proof, they introduced a bill of
attainder, naming the party in the bill, and
tried him without the proof which would be
necessary to convict him in a court of law; two
witnesses under the statute of Edward the
Third being necessary for conviction. Our
Constitution declares that no bill of attainder
shall be passed, and that the proof of treason
shall consist in the testimony of two witnesses
to the overt act, or confession in open court.
So that if an party has committed treason
there must be two witnesses to prove the same
overt net; and if the party confesses to a thousand
persons extra-judicially out in the street,
or anywhere else, those persons cannot be
called as witnesses in a court of justice to
testify against him. His confession, to con-
vict him, must be made in open court. Then,
when the Constitution comes to prescribe
how this treason shall be punished, they de-
clare that the punishment shall be left to the
discretion of Congress, who can provide that
the punishment shall be either the taking the
life of the parly, or the confining him in the
penitentiary, or the imposition of a fine, and
such attendant circumstances of degradation
as they please. But the Constitution added that
the consequences of attainder which resulted
at common law, the forfeiture of the estate
and the corruption of the blood, should not
attach to the crime of treason in this country,
declaring that " no attainder of treason shall
work corruption of blood, or forfeiture, ex-
cept during the life of the person attainted."
I will refer to one other authority, and then
I will close all I have to say upon this sub-
ject. I read from Judge Tucker's Commenta-
ries, vol. 1, page 275, of the Appendix, where
he is treating upon this provision in the Con-
stitution of the United States. He says :
" The precise definition of treason, and the
limitation of it to two cases, only, both of
which are clearly and explicitly described, at
once evince the prudence, caution and wis
dom [I commend these words to the consid
eration of this body] of the framers of the
Constitution, by shutting the door (as far as
human prudence, and human foresight, could
provide the means of doing so) against all
possible cases of constructive treason. The
many infamous acts of comply ing Parliaments
in England, during the reigns of the Tudors
and other tyrannical princes, and the more
infamous and detestable decisions of servile
and corrupt judges, from the days of Emp- |
son and Dudley to those of the execrable
Jefferies, must evince the necessity and pro-
priety of such a limitation. From such cor-
ruption and servility, either in the Legislature
or in the tribunals of justice, we may reason-
ably hope that this clause of the Constitution
will effectually guard and protect the United
States. Nor should we forget that the se-
curity of die citizen is still further answered
by that provision in the Constitution which
declares that no person shall be convicted of
treason, unless on the testimony of two wit-
nesses to the same overt act, or on confession
of it in open Court. So that no extra-judicial
confession, though proved by fifty witnesses,
would, of itself, be evidence sufficient to con-
vict a man upon the charge of treason. A
provision which almost bids defiance lo false
witnesses. The abolition of forfeiture, and of
the corruption of blood, in cases of treason, is
moreover a happy expedient tor lessening the
incentives to prosecutions for treason, in cor-
rupt Governments, Rapacity is equally the
cause and effect of tyranny. To curb every
pretence for the exercise of it, should be the
invariable object of a people framing a Constitution.
It is a monster that assumes a
thousand shapes, of which the most odious,
as well as the most terrible, is that in which
it attacks life, liberty and property, at the
same time, and with the same weapons; its
power is then irresistible."
Now, if we are to listen to the teachings of
the wise men who halve gone before us, on
this subject, if we are to listen at all lo the
lessons of history, it seems to me that we
should leave this provision of our bill of
rights precisely as the committee reported it,
without change or modification-in any man-
ner whatever.
Mr. JONES, of Somerset. I desired, when
the gentleman from Howard (Mr. Sands) was
speaking, in order that I might understand
fully the position he occupied, to inquire of
him whether he proposes, toy his advocacy of
the amendment which the gentleman from
Baltimore city (Mr. Stirling) has offered, to
advocate the punishment of offences, as within
our jurisdiction, those acts or similar acts
whereby those have been made widows
and orphans, whose lamentations have filled
the land during this civil war,
Mr. SANDS. I have a very direct and plain
answer to that gentleman. I propose to allow
the legislative branch of the State Govern-
ment, or whatever is the proper authority to
legislate upon the subject, to define what
treason is, to make it clear and plain; and
then I propose to let the judicial department
determine whether the party charged has been
guilty of treason or not. All that we are
doing in tills article is to provide the extent
of the punishment, leaving to the legislative
arm of the Government the delining of trea-
son, and to the judicial arm of Government
the finding and convicting the party guilty of |
