New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1862-06-12
A MARYLAND VIEW OF CONRlsCA.
TION.
Letter from H. Winter Davis.

Their opponents seem inclined to triae with the
people, or else they have forgotten the simplest
elements or law.
I observe that some respectable lawyers confound
che Cou6scs6on bills with bills Of atainder or of
powers and penalties!
Congress is rightly forbidden to pass q bill Of
s,tainder; and would forever maintain that inhi.
btion. But what is bill of attainder7
Iiss law performing the office Of a Judgment.
II is a Legislature doing the work of Judge. 1t is
an act of Congress, or Of Parliament, declaring q
particular person guilty Of specified act and order
ing his punishment The passage Of the law places the
person just where q conviction and Judgment Of .
Court places him--notbing remains but execution.
1t is ridiculous to call the bills before Congress bills
Of at,ainder. They have no one Of the penalties of
4 bill Of atMindsr and the word can be applied to
them in no sense ever recognized in lsw-book.
They who do 90 apply the word are either ILL
informed or invoke q prejudice to do the work Of
argument.
The bills before Congress name no particular per-
SOUS therefore they punish nobody They declare
,hst certain acts committed after their passage shall
be punished by couhscation but till the act is COM
mitted no one be declared guilty Of it; they do
not therefore attaint any one. A bill Of atainder
relates to the past and nothing but punishment
remains after its passage. The bills before Congress
relate to the lture-decsre the future consequences
Of future acts and leave both the person and the
fact to be ascertained after the law, declaring the
punishment, shall have passed
What excuse Is there u confound such a law with
bill of sttainder "a legislative judgment on past
&C. with legislative penalty on future act
The same gentlemen invoke against the bills the
clause of the Constitution which declares that Con-
gress shall have power declare the punishment OF
treason; bat no atander Of treason shall work cor
rupton of blood or forfeiture except during the life
of the psrson attained But what has that clause "a
do with laws which confessedy provide for .ontisca
tn pthout conviction OF the person for treason. The
most plausible objection 10 the coniscation laws II
that they do not make the forfeiture dependent on
previous oonviction it is therefore clear that thf
clause which defines the consequences of a COMIC
ton Of the person can have no bearing on q law
which prescrbcs other modes Of ascersining and en-
forcing forfeiture. II may be that those method.
are fofbiddes, and if so the law mus, fail Of execu
ton; but it ia irrelevant TO quote rule of judgment
defining and limiting the consequences of a convic
ton for treason against law which coniemplatei
neither conviction nor judgment for treason.
1t is certain that Congress can pass no law where
BY person convicted OF treason can be sentenced 4
forfeit bis property, beyond bis lfc consequence
Of the conviction Such law would be void Sucl
q Judgment would vest no title in the Government
and the heirs of the owner could eject any claim
ing bis property under the United States.
But the provision does not say Congress shall no
make forfeiture the penalty Of aDy act tha
Congress may not make forfeiture penalty OF tres
son itself it merely says that forfeiture beyond the
life shall not be one of the consequences Of q con
viction Of the persoa for treas0R.
Now, the pending bills do not connect confscatioI
and conviction of the person for any crime, stl les
for treason.
This clam, therefore, whatever it mean and what
ever be its effect, has relation TO bills such ~
those reported BY Mr.. Eliot That claim does moi
prove Mr.. Eliot's bills to be unconstitutional.
Is there any other clause Of the Constitution which
forbids such legislation
1t seems TO me the lawyers are especially at fault
when they refer TO the provisions relating to the
trial Of ali crimes by jury.
No persoa can be convicted Of any crime but by
Jury; but these bills DO not contemplate any convic
tion Of any personally proceeding against the per
son whatever.
Still less can any argument be deduced from tn,
fifth amendment, declaring that " no person shall b
held to answer for any capital or other infamou
crime, unless presentment Of grand jury, &C.
nor be deprived Of lie, liberty, orproperty with
out due process Of law; for no one Is held to an
swsr' under these Laws at ALL and the question I
whether this mode of depriving them Of property II
not a due process Of lar for that purpose.
There are various processes Of law for deprivin.
persons Of life liberty and property and one mehot
does not exclude another method but each If good
its particular case, while some are forbidden snC
therefore unconstitutional III all cases. bill
aitaipder, and an ex POI. facto law are Jorbtdden
No person can be held 10 answer for any crime, IN
less on the presentment OF grand jury, nor tret
otherwise than by jury Of the State and district
IT, therefore, Congress passa bill Of attainder agains
Jefferson Davis or should enact that Court OF AID
mirslty should try and convict for murder
without Jury, or indictment by
Grand Jury, that law would be unconstitu
:ional, Tor It is forbidden. 1t is trial and |
conutcfton without due process Of law and deatf
under it is murder, and imprisonment under II al
illegal violation of the liberty Of the citizen. Blu
it would he gross error TO say that no one can b
deprived of liberty or life otherwise than unde
criminal prosecution, for then the President hs
murdered many men in the field, aud enslaved many
men In the military prisons. For men In arms,
power il due process Of law; they are not convic
tion nor trial. nor punishment Of the prisons tbel
~ assuredly deprive them Of life or OF liberty as
conviction and a sheriff, and they are just as lesa
- conviction and hanging.
So there are methods Of deprivlDg persons o
property which are not connected with criminal pro
ceediDgs against the person, and provisions which
define the modes Of proceedings against the person
and hmt the consequences OF such proceedings, nave
no relation 10 processes Of law net against th'
person, which yet do deprive the person Of hi
property.
1a1ot.oa deprives the person of bis property
not by any judicial process, but by an administers
tive processyet it IL process Of lar, essential to
the exstence Of the Government IL IL just as re-
ona 10 quote the prohibition against taking private
property for public use, without compensation, To
prove the unconstitutionality OF ,axstion, as "a
invoke the prohibitions against making coniiscation
= consequence Of conviction to prove that there
could be no confscstion without conviction.
II taxes be not paid, the failure is followed by