Holmes County farmer. [volume] (Millersburg, Ohio) 1857-1926, 1864-02-11

| for hi S judgment in ordinary matters, be-
licYc the opinion which we hold, as they
did, is papaby right. My colleague has ex-
hibited the opinion of Judge Story; and all
legal minds in this country will estimate
| alike the value of that opinion. The gen
tleman from Indiana Mr. Orth has pro-
duced several high authorities to the. same
effect, although he ignores their teaching.
! ! will oblige that gentleman by furnishing
him with what he informs us he has sought
vigilantly, but could not find, some wise
voice, speaking from the time-honored pa
ges of the Federalist, on this subject. Let
the gentleman turn to the l73 page of this
! volume which [ hold in my hand and he
will find from the pen ofno less distinguish
ed commentator than James Madison,
the following paragraph:
As treason may be committed against
the United States, the authority OF the
! United States ought to be able to punish it;
! but as new-fangled and artificial treasons
| have been the great engines by which vio-
lent factions, the natural offspring of free
governments, have usually wrcakcd their
alternate malignity on each other, the Con-
vention have, with great judgment, oppos-
cd a barrier to this peculiar danger by in
serting q Constitutional definition of the
crime, fixing the proof necessary for convic-
tion of it, and restraining the Congress even
in punishing it, from extending the con-
sequences Of guilt beyond the person Of its
author.
That gentleman having assured Us that
commentators have all taken an absurd view
of the subject, undertakes to solve the prob
lem of construction in a more rational way.
To bring about that solution and demon
stratc its conclusiveness the gentleman
availa himself Of new and modern perspi-
Guilty. which Story, Madison, Rawle, and
other like men did not possess at the time OF
writing, and whose opinions, therefore, are
entitled to less weight on that account =
This new perspicuity arises from great ad-
vanres recently made in the science OF phi
losophy by which the learned have been en-
ablcd to illuminate the obscurity which to
C many surrounds the rooty origin Of words.
= Or course, as we are progressive people,
{ we must learn to rc-interpret our Constitu-
= tion and laws according to the new phllo-
- sophical light. BY applying this improved
: advantage to the construction OF the lnvol-
u ycd clause the gentleman comes out all
+ right. lie philogizcs away the little word
i except" and then he has corruption VI
+ blood aud forfeiture Of estate unlimited, the
a result of the new and improved process,
G applied to the clause, being this conclusion,
+ the judicial proceedings aganst'the guilty
e party shall be had in his lictime-thus for
e bidding the injustice of insttuting AN ac-
/ tiOn against Il dead man, upon whom no
y better service OF process could be made than
e by paStng the writ or warrant ON his coffin
q or tombstone | am on the whole, con
+ .irairco TO believe tldt win sucn results
l. from what is claimed to be improved inter
II probation, we had better adhere to the
+ tcaehings of common sense. Did the max
Y ers Of the Constitution intend to prevent,
t or did they imagine the possibility of legal
| proceedings to enforce the penalties ef trea-
! son being instituted or prosecuted after the
death of the accused2 Certainly they did
\ not.
+ The gentleman from Indiana seems to be
r not quito clear even with this new light
= upon this subject ofcorruption of blood and
e. forfeiture Of estate. The second and third
= divisions of the cited clause although they
y import different ideas, both look and inure
to the same effect in this, that they provide
y that no incapacity to inherit shall attach tC
= the heir and that no forfeiture shall attacl
n to the estate to prevent the inheritance.
II The gentleman from Maryland, Mr.
&C Davis who once; as he says, adopted til,
1t construction of the Constitution for whicl
c | contcud, but now sees the matter in an
Is other light argues, among other sugges
tious, that the alleged restrictions OF tn
ly Constitution, having relation to an attain
n der, which means forfeiture by the judy
r, ment Of court, are inapplicable to tn
it process Of forfeiture under the confscatio
n act of 1862. He says, if he has read Alright
le the law does not attach forfeiture or contiS
re cation to an attainder or conviction OF trea
r. son. If the gentleman will turn his atten
I'd ton to the seventh section of that act, h
n will find that the entire substance OF IN
IL proceedings under that act consists in tn
5, forfeiture, upon proof Of treason, by judi
le cal Judgment, of the property of n pcrso
n shown in court to have been guilty OF tn
ut facts which constitute that crime, an
p therefore such proceedings are, in prime
tc pie, in no way distinguished from those ha
le on indictments for treason, where forfeit
a ure follows conviction, and is made n pa,
re of the Judgment and sentence. The prC
It cccdings under the contiscation law to "a
he tach forfeiture to the estate Of the part
I'd after the period of his life, are judicial pro
II ccedmgs to inhict the very penalty whic
lis the Constitution prohibits, for the oiiens
he upon which the forfeiture is prcdicatcd
u treason.
It The findings and orders of the court, i,
is provided for in that act, are substantial
VI dH'l III tlNNb VI tiNdNOu' ~
" scrihing n new method of doing forbi,
h den thing does not help the dilemma \
es an argument to show that the trainers iii
r. not intend to protect estates from torteitul
lie to follow the laws Of blood inheritance,
N is said that the costs Of the conviction an
fines adjudgcd are liens upon the estate
at the deceased, and against the heir it ma
ng be appropriated TO pay them. This argl
Us mcnt fails to exhibit the slightest analog,
ed Tor fines and costs are simply like civil debt
ch to be paid out Of the estate of deceast
i'm debtor, but do not involve at all the idea
be forfeiture, which MS Il penalty sweeps ava
icy a whole estate without regard to value
on amount.
,ss But more apprcciable reason has be,
le, given by the gentleman from Maryland L
by urging this policy lie informs us that Il
IN fixed policy of the Administration is Il
,p- unconditional conliscation of the proper
w, of rebels, This may be true at the prese
ess time, but | always supposed that the Pre-
ident was an essential part of an Admin
mt tration, and certainly at one time, VIII,
20, this very contiscation bill was under his CO
he sideration, he perceived insurmountah
| Constitutional objections to the unrestri
he ted iortcitures provided for by its terms,
ter This state of his mind he made known.
he Congress in the most emphatic way, by /
ng prepared and announced veto, and, as
ION know, the result was the explanatory al
hal III