The Cadiz Democratic sentinel. [volume] (Cadiz, Ohio) 1854-1864, 1862-06-25
what George ID. Prentice thinks
of John A. Bingham as ~ Law
ycr and as IA Politician.
Louisville DaiIy Journ al, June

From the louisville Dally Journa June D.
In the course of Mr.. Mallory's re-
cent very able speech in the House Of
Representatives, the following colloquy
took place:
Mr.. Bingham. win the gentleman allow
me to make an inquiry Of him?
Mr.. Mallory. ] would rather that the gen.
tleman would let me go on with my remarks
without interruption,
Mr.. Bingham. have no desire to inter-
rupt the line OF the genteman's remarks?-
simply wanted to make an inquiry for my
own information.
Mr.. Mallory. will hear the gentleman
with great deal OF pleasure.
Mr.. Bingham. desire to inquire OF the
gentleman whether he has ever sen in any
commentary upon the Constitution or in
anything connected with the debates in the
national convention, or in any OF the statutes,
any intmation that the word forfeiture" in
the Constitution is necessarily limited to es-
tates?
MIR. Mallory. Mr. Speaker, in the inves-
tigation Of this subject, when found that
the Constitution Of the United States lmi.
ted our powers in Furnishing the crime OF
treason, so far as the property OF the person
was concerned, to forfeiture during tho life Of
the party inquired what was meant by "for-
feiture.'' found, on searching the English
law, that forfeiture means taking (as pun
ishment for crime) by the king or govern
ment any property that man owns, and |
supposed that forfeiture in the Constitution
maant and was intended to mean nothing
else; that it applied to property in estate and
could apply to nothing else. did not sup.
pose that it had entered into the imagination
of any man to conceive that it had any ref
lerence to anything else than the estate Of the
person attainted. What else could it have
been intended to mean? Does it mean tha a
person attainted of treason should not forfeit
his life except during the life Of the person SC
attainted?
Mr.. Bingham. I am perfectly willing tc
answer the gentleman's question, il he de
sires me to do so.
2 Mr.. Mallory. will hear the gentleman
with pleasure.
Mr.. Bingham. undertake TO say that :
careful examination of the original draft o
the Constitution will lead the gentleman him
self TO the conclusion that the terms "cor
ruption of blood" ard forfeiture" as used
in that Constitution. are convertible terms
and that the word "estate is neither express
ed nor implied in that connection.
MIR. Mallory. Mr.. Speaker, have looked
in the books, not perhaps to the same extent
not perhaps with the same research, not per
haps with the same learning and patura
acumen, as the gentleman, but have looked
ut the books with some care in relation t.
this matter, and that examination has lee
my mind to the conclusion that corruption
of blood and forfeiture were two diferen
things. That is my understanding. MAJ
be very much in error. II am, will mos
cheeriully stand corrected by any Learned
gentleman upon this floor. believe tina
is the common law. | understand that Ii
the interpretation, not only of common law
yers, but even Of uncommon lawyers.
Mr.. Bingham. Will The gentleman allow
me to inquire what the term corruption o
blood" means, if it ever had any significance
at all except the forfeiture Of one right OF
another2
Mr.. Mallory. The words corruption o
blood?"
Mr.. Bingham. Yes, sir.
Mr.. Mallory. have always understood
that by corruption of blood" which is the
result Of attainder, all power OF transmitting
through the blood any estate or inheritance
was cut off, that inheritance could not be de.
rived by his descendants through one whose
blood was corrupted by attaint of treason
This is my understanding OF the English
Law.
Mr.. Bingham, our readers are per-
laps not aware, is one of the Repre-.
sentatives of Ohio, is reputed an able
lawyer, is certainly an able man, and
witbal red-hissing abolitionist. AS
q lawyer the exhibition he makes Of
himself in this colloquy is not credita-
Bile, and, but for several parallel exhi.
bitions he has made of himself in the
House, it would be hardly credible.
The present instance is assuredly very
remarkable.
The constitutional clause in question,
as adopted by our fathers and recorded
in the national archives, is as follows:
The Congress shall have Power to declare
the Punishment Of Treason, but no Attainder
OF Treason shall work Corruption Of Blood,
Or Forfeiture, except during the Life Of the
Person attainted.
We print this clause from the copy
of the constitution given in the Appen-
dix of Curtis's History of the Con>
stitution,' i with the following marginal
note BY the author:
#This copy Of the Constitution has been
compared with the Rolls in the Department
of State, and Is punctuated and otherwise
printed in exact conformity Herewith.
The clause as we have reproduced it
above is therefore absolutely exact
exact not only literally, but in respect
TO punctuation, capitalization, and ev-