The Nashville daily union. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1862-1866, 1862-06-28
SATURDAY MORNING, JUNE 28, 1862
Letter from II. Winter Davis,
of Maryland.
BALTIMORE. MD. june 6. 18G

q
My DEAR SIN: | have followed, with
great interest and some surprise, the
course of argument in opposition to the
confiscation bills. ~
Their opponents seem inclined to tride
with the people, or else they have for
gotten the simplest elements of law.
observe that some respectable lawyers
cOnfOund the coniiscation bills with bills
of attainder or OF powers and penalties
Congress is rightfully forbidden to pass
a bill Of attainder; and l would forever
maintain that inhibition But what is a
bill of attainder?
1t is a law performing the Office of
Judgment It is legislature doing the
work of a judge. II is an act Of Congress
or of Parliament, declaring a particular
person guilty of a specified act, and Or
dering his punishment. The passage Of
the law places the person just where
conviction and judgment of court places
him--nothing remains but execution.
1t is ridiculous TO call the bills before
| Congress bills of attainder. They have
no one of the penalties of bill Of at
tainder, and the word can be applied TO
them in no sense ever recognized in a
law-book. They who do so apply the
word, are either ill-informed or invoke a
prejudice TO do the work of argument.
The bills before Congress name no par
ticular persons, therefore they punish
nobody. They declare that certain acts,
committed after their passage, shall be
punished by conliscation; but, till the
act is committed, no one can be declared
guilty of it; they do not, therefore, at
faint any one. A bill of attainder relates
TO the past, and nothing but punishment
remains after its passage. The bills be-
fore Congress relate TO the future-sde-
clare the future consequences Of future
acts, and leave both the person and the
fact TO be ascertained after the law, de-
claring the punishment shall have passed
What excuse is there TO cOnfound such
a law with bill Of attainder pa legis-
latiye judgment on past act with leg
islative penalty on future act?
The same gentlemen invoke against the
bills the clause of the constitution which
declares that Congress shall have power
TO declare the punishment of treason; J,t
no dttainder Of treason shall work cOrrup
tiOn Of blood or forfeiture, except during
the life of the person attainted." Blu
what has that clause 10 do with law
which confessedly provide for conlisca
ton i0iGi0m conviction of the person FOL
treason. The most plausible objection
to the coniiscatiOn laws is that they do no
make the forfeiture dependent ON pre-
viOus conviction; il is therefore clear tina
the clause which defines the consequcn
ces Of a conviction Of the person can hav
no hearing on law which prescribes othe
modes Of ascertaining and enforcing
forfeiture. II may be that those method
are forbidden, and if so, the law mus
fail Of execution; but it is irrelevant {
quote a rule Of judgment defining an,
limiting the consequences Of a conviction
! for treason against a law which contem
plates neither conviction nor judgment 70
treason.
II is certain that Congress can pass n
law whereby person convicted Of treaso
q can be sentenced TO forfeit his property
beyond his life, as a consequence of III
4 conviction. Such a law would be vol,
, Such a judgment would vest no title /
= the Government, and the heirs Of III
owner could eject any one claiming hi
property under the United States.
But the provision does not say Congress
- shall not make forfeiture the penalty
any act nor even that Congress may n,
"A make forfeiture a penalty of treason i
{ self; IL merely says that forfeiture b,
p yond the life shall not be one of the COZ
E sequences Of conviction Of the person f
y treason.
Now, the pending bills do not come
eonhscation and conviction Of the persC
for any crime, still less for treason.
This claim therefore, whatever il met
and whatever be its effect, has no relati,
to bills such as those reported by N
Elliot That claim does not prove N
lr Ellots bill to be unconstitutional.
Is there any other clause OF the const
tuition which forbids such legislation?
4 IL seems TO me the lawyers are cspcl
n ally at fault when they refer 10 the pr
10 visions relating 10 the trial Of all Grim
ut by jury.
D No person can be convicted Of al
crime but by a jury; but these bills
- not contemplate any conviction Of d
pcrson-any proceeding against the pc
n, son whatever
ey Still less can any argument DO dcduC
al trom the NTH amendment, declaring n
tu mo person shall be held 10 answer
arc any capital or other infamous crime, d
less on presentment of q grand jar.
,ds Sc; nor be deprived Of life, liberty,
M. property without due process Of laV
for no one Is held 20 answer" unD
these laws at all; and the question
whether this mode of depriving them
property is not a due process Of law