treason, if proved. The article we are about
to adopt has nothing to do with defining what
treason is, what act shall constitute treason
bow it shall be tried, or anything else of the
kind. The article under consideration fixes
the punishment, when the Legislature has
defined the crime, and the Court has found
the party guilty,
Mr. JONES, of Somerset. The reply of the
gentleman does not meet the objection which
arises in my mind to the amendment pro-
posed by the gentleman from Baltimore city
(Mr. Stirling) to this article. That amend-
ment is in these words; or rather it proposes
to make the article read :
"That no conviction shall work corruption
of blood, nor shall there be any forfeiture of
the estate of any person for any crime except
treason, and then only on conviction,"
Now it does not state that the forfeiture
which it is intended to provide for treason is
for treason against the United States, or
treason against the State of Maryland.
Mr. SANDS. I think that as we are framing
a Constitution for the State of Maryland, and
not for the United States, it must deal only,
and solely, and exclusively with the State of
Maryland, and can have nothing to do with
the United States.
Mr. JONES, of Somerset. Then how is it
possible for the gentleman to incorporate into
the Constitution of Maryland the provisions
of the act of 1777, which proposed to punish
acts of treason against the United States?
Mr. SANDS. The act of 1777 was a State
act, intended to punish treason against the
State. Let me read the preamble to that act :
"Whereas the clemency of this State, to-
wards such of its subjects and inhabitants as
are inimical to its freedom and independence,
has not had the desired effect of reclaiming
them from their evil practices, but still pur
suing the dark and criminal designs of en-
slaving America, they continue to encourage
and promote the operations of our enemies;
and whereas every hope of uniting to the in-
terest of their country the affections of those
its unnatural and implacable enemies is ex-
tinguished, and great disadvantages have
arisen, and still more dangerous consequences
may be apprehended, from a delay of effectual
measures to suppress or remove them from
the society of a free people, constrained by
oppression to declare their independence, and
determined at all events to maintain the
same."
Mr. JONES, of Somerset. What is the en-
actment; what is the crime for which the
punishment is prescribed ?
Mr. SANDS. I will read the enactment ;
"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 whatever,
being an inhabitant of any other of the
United States, or any of them, shall, within |
this State, levy war against the United
States "—
Mr. JONES, of Somerset. That is all that
is necessary; it is as I thought.
Mr. SANDS. I contemplate that treason
against the State of Maryland shall compre-
hend levying war against the United States;
that is what I want to legislate upon.
Mr. CLARKE, When was that act passed?
Mr. SANDS. In 1777.
Mr. CLARKE. Prior to the formation of the
Constitution of the United States.
Mr. SANDS. Of course. But it is a State
act exclusively. If gentlemen can show me
anything in the Constitution of the United
States which prevents Maryland from pro-
viding what she pleases in regard to treason
against her, then I will admit the force of the
objection.
Mr. JOKES, of Somerset. It is precisely
what I supposed it to be. The act was passed
at a time when there was no power in this
country, except in the several States, to
punish treason. It was passed the year after
the Declaration of Independence, when our
nationality had not been recognized by any
foreign power, when we were in the midst of
a revolution. Those then in the several States
who were in favor of the revolution had the
control of the State governments; and in
this State there was a revolutionary Conven-
tion, which was omnipotent, and had an army
and a navy to enforce its behests. Yet
there were persons living in the State, under
the protection of that very revolutionary
government, who were giving aid and com-
fort to the common enemy of the State and
of the nation, and acknowledging their alle-
giance to the government of Great Britain.
And it was to punish those persons that the
revolutionary Convention of 1777 passed the
act which has been read. It prescribed that
those persons, who under those circumstances
gave aid and comfort to the armies of Great
Britain, should be held guilty of treason
against the State of Maryland, and should be
punished accordingly. And when the revo-
lution was over, our independence acknowl-
edged, and the Articles of Confederation
formed, even then I believe the punishment
of treason was left to the States severally.
But when the Convention of 1787 met, the
Articles of Confederation being found to not
have answered the purpose for which they
were entered into, the several States dele-
gated to the Government of the United States,
then proposed to be inaugurated, the pun-
ishment of the crime of treason against the
United States. And they, therefore, neces-
sarily deprived themselves of the right to
punish the crime of treason against, the Gov-
ernment of the United States, that right hav-
ing been vested by them in another tribunal
and jurisdiction. They went further, and
defined the crime, the power to punish which
they had thus delegated to the United States; |
