New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1863-05-22
sOfEbsfATI0y.

The constitutional restrictions upon attaiud.,
and forfeiture Tor treason ugaint the United
States, and especially their effect with refer.
ence to the recent COnfscation act are learn.
edly discussed in a joint pamphlet by Prot. W.
ID. Wilson Of Hobart College and the Hon.
Samuel A. Foot of Albany. These gentlemen
agree in the opinion that the clause Of the
Constitution which has been supposed to Emi.
the power Of Congress TO confscston Of tho
life interest OF traitors in their property s su,.
ceptible Of different interpretation. The az.
gumrnt presented is in substance Us follows:
The punishment of treason in England at ,ss
time of the adoption Of our Constitution WIZ
By tIiul aud conviction of tae traitor in
court OF law, or by an Act OF Parliament
called a Bill Of Attainder, which might b
passed against traitor living or dead. II
living, he was generally adjuged 10 death, for.
fixture OF property and corruption Of blood be-
ing part OF the sentence. If dead, be was ssii
condemned to suffer in property and bloGd q
before. This punishment was maniesfly unjust
in that it was a legislative act and because
the penalty was 10 fact imposed net on tie
criminal but on bis innocent heirs. The Geo.
stitution Of the United States undertook to
remedy The Injustice BY declaring frs! that
% no bill OF stlaiader OF e post .taciO law shah
be passed" and secondly that $40 aitaades
Of treason shall work corruption Of blood or
forfeiture except during the life of the person
atialnted" II cOniers on Congress the power
to declare the punishment Of treason. subject,
TO these restrictions. TIE question therefore
under the CoafscatiOn act must depeSa 90
tbe Interpretation Of tia second clause above
quoted.
Judge Foot is of opinion that the prevalent
error concerning il has arisen from failure
TO appreciate its inten. 20 prohibit the crua
and unjust punishment OF treason which the
English LAW then inflicted and from the omis.
sion to regard the true meaning and legal effect
Of the term forfeiture. That surd has we'd.
asceriaincd legal sen.e. acquired long before
the adoption OF the Constitution, and still re-
taiAei. II means a mode OF changing title to
property, and Is Identical in effect with CON-
mon conveyance o: property, differing from Is
ohly IN the circumstance that an ordinary in
strument Of alienation is based on considora
ton, real or implied, while in the case Of Q
forfeiture the title is taken from the own "
wsr oi penalty for crime. Substituting tbs
!, gal meaning OF the term forfeiture for the
term itselt, /! ia manifest that the claim viii
then mean that no attainder shall destroy tho
title to traitors property except during BIZ
life
Perhaps the whole argument may be more
briefly stated 10y considering the question ~
one of the arrangement aud logical dependence
of the different members Of the sentences.
Judge Foots construction would TO entirely
natural, GBd perhaps inevitable, If the clause
had been, " No attainder OF treason shall, ak
cept during the lite of the person attained,
work corruption OF blood or forfeiture. Ihas
Is. YOU shall not, after tho death OF traitor,
punish the innocent heirs TO whom bis prop
,rt, has descended for the crime OF Etielr an
cestor. IT, during bis lifetime, the ice OF his
estate is confscsted no injustice is done 10 MS
heirs, tor he has no heirs. Nsmo 81 h@'ss
-iseaii. And the obvious purpose oil the ram
err, of the Constitution was TO reform the prao-
tee of imposing the penalty after the DEAN OIL
tue trator-a purpose which, b. this CONSTITUTE
ton, is completed! fulfilled.
szzrs.zz@zszu-E@En