Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1864-01-23
,IES COLU MBUS OHIO SATURDAY MORNING, JANUA


EXTENT Of the punishment, so that it should no
We Of tie offender.
1t surely is enough for society TO take the life o
the offender as just punishment Of his crime
without taking from his offspring and relatives tina
property which may be the only means Of sayint
them from poverty and ruin. IL is bad policy, too
for it cuts off all the attachments which these unfor
tunate victims might otherwise feel for their owr
government. and prepares them 70 engage in an,
|, be redressed or their hereditary hatred gratifed
Upon these and similar grounds II may be presumed
that the clause was first introduced into the origina
ments, twas adopted without any apparent resist
ance BY the laws since passed by Congress it is de-
cared that no conviction or Judgment for any capi'
any forfeiture Of estate The history Of other coun-
tries abundanty proves that Of the strong incen-
tiyes to prosecute oenses as treason has been the
Rapacity has been thus stimulated to exert itself in
the service Of the most corrupt tyranny and tyran-
ny has been thus furnished with new opportunities
Of indugng its malignity and revenge; OF gratify-
ing its envy Of the rich and good and Of increasing
its means to reward fayortes and SECURE reainers for
the worst deeds.-3 Storys Commentaries, p. ITO.
Mr.. Speaker, the gentleman from Indiana
could find no reason for the construction
Ijurist does find good and satisfactory rea-
son for the limitation Of the punishment,
and he gives it in the extract which has just
been read. There can be no greater reason
against extending penal law than the fact
that such extension will work harm to the
innocent, and encourage tyranny, rapacity,
cruelty, and murder. To say nothing of the
impolicy of breaking down allegiance to
the Government by such system of injus-
| tice, the reasons | have quoted are sufficient
to answer all that the gentleman from In
diana has said in favor Of his construction.
Mr.. Orth-Will the gentleman allow me
to ask him single question: whether he
takes the position that this bill now before
us, or any pending amendments to it, will
work corruption of blood?
Mr.. CoX-This bill, with the pending
amendments?
Mr.. Orth-Yes sir. VIII it work corrup-
ton of blood?
Mr.. Cox-It can not work corruption of
blood under our Constitution. There can
be no such thing as corruption of blood.
Mr.. Orth-I ask the gentleman further
more whether the authority read from
Judge Story does not apply, and do not his
remarks apply, to the fact of corruption Of
blood? H.
Mr.. Cox-It applies to this very clause of
the Constitution: .E
Congress shall have power to declare tho punish
ment Of trea9On, but no atainder Of treason shall
work corruption Of blood forfeiture except during
| the life Of the person attanted.
1t lis Oh that that Judge Story is comment
ing.
The gentleman argued that there had been
abuses with regard to- corruption of blood
and forfeiture of estates. Persons had been
found guilty of treason after death, and
estates had been forfeited after the person
attainted had died. Monstrous abuses
had grown in consequence of declaring
the blood to be attainted after death; {;
men were so blackened by the attaint that
they could not transmit an inheritance to
their descendants. Promising these facts
of history, the gentleman argued that the
object Of this mOoted clause Of our Consti-
tuition was to prevent such abuses. That
was the main point of the gentleman's ar
gument. That it is gross fallacy | shall
demonstrate. He said, and said very truly
In further support of my position, let me advert to
the fact that in England long prior to and at the
adoption Of our Constitution, attainder Of treason
after the death Of the supposed traitor q mean his
frequent occurrence. This was a monstrous doc
trne, shocking to every principle of justice upon
which the criminal code is sfounded, to accuse man
Of crime after DEATH when none is to speak for his
innocence, TO proceed TO trial and Judgment TO wrest
from innocent hands that property which by law up
on his death descended to and vested in bis heirs.
aud forfeit Their property and not his property to the
Government for his supposed criminal conduct. Is
IL not more just and reasonable to suppose that the
Constitution intended TO embrace and provide
against this monstrous perversion Of natural
than that il intended absurd apropositonas that
the forfeiture Of estate should only be for that brief
period Of time between sentence of death and its
execution? Hr .#|.t
/ answer the question the gentleman puts
by saying that 1t is monstrous, that it is a
great and grievons wrong thus to attaint a
man and forfeit his estate after his death.
The history of England in that regard is
red with blood and black with cruelty. But
from it our fathers learned lesson. To
stain the memory after death, to corrupt the
blood after it had ceased to pulsate, and to
''rob the innocent p0sterlty of the inheri-
tanee which, by the laws of the realm, had
descended TO and vested in them, as the law
full descendants of their ancestor" was so
revolving to every sense of right and JUS
tice that join with the gentleman in exc
Grating such bascness. The creative minds
with gave form, life, beauty and symmetry
toour Federal system did not tolerate such
barbarous codes. They saw these mon
strosities. Ay, sir, and in our matchless
Constitution they provided against their
occurrence here in this free and better
country; bit not By the clause TO aohich the gen.
tlemdn 1oould refer. If the gentleman had
read the Constitution and the authoritative
commentary little further, he would have
found in that clause of the Constitution
which says that 'no bill of attainder or er
post tdcto law shall be passed" the solution
of the problem he discussed. He would
then have seen how amply our fathers
guarded against those monstrous abuses of
power which reached into the tomb and
dishonored and disinherited those who sur
viving mourned. The argument of the
gentleman is answered by referring him to
that sweeping clause of the Constitution
against all attainders. Judge Story says, in
speaking of that very clause:
Such acts have been often resorted to in foreign
Governments as n common engine Of State; and
even in England they have been pushed TO the most
extravagant extent in bad times, reaching as well to
the absent and the dead 10 the living Sir Edward
Coke has mentioned il to be among the ranscendent
powers of Parliament that an act may Do passed TO
attdiRt a man after 10 is dead. And the ,reiguing
Monarch, who was slain at Bosworth, is said to have
been attainted by act Of Parliament feo months
deemng him at once in possessionof the throne and
traitor, The punishment has often been inflicted
without calling upon the party accused TO answer or
without even the formality Of proof and sometimes
because the law in its ordinary course Of proceed
ings would acquit the offender. The injustice and
iniquty Of such acts i'm general constitute an irre
sistbe argument against the existence Of the power
the hands Of q ,reigning faction 1t might be- and
probably would be, abused to the ruin and death Of
the most virtuous citizens. Bills Of this sort have
been most usually passed in England in times Of re-
belon or OF gross subserviency 10 the Crown or of
violent political excitemeuts in which all
nations are most liable (as well the free rs the
slaveD 10 forget their duties and to trample upon