Clearfield Republican. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1851-1937, 1867-01-24
GEO. B. G00DLANDER, Proprietor


lily or citizenship. In France, depri-
vation Of civil rights and Legislation
for office, or Of being guardian OF
trustee, or being employed in schools
orseminaries of learning. The theory
on which our institutions rest is that
call men have certain inalienable
rights, among them life, liberty, and
the pursuit of happiness" Thus, all
places Of honor and position are open
to every one, and all are protected
equally under the law, and depriva
ton Of rights for past conduct is a
punishment, and cannot otherwise be
defined.
The court then proceeded to the
consideration of the Constitutional
question. The Constitution contains
what may be deemed bill of rights
for each State. 1t says: "No State
shall pass bill of attainder or e.r post
fdcto law" A bill of attainder is Il
legislative net which involves punish
ment without trial. If less than
death, ii is a bill of pains and penal
ties. They assume the guilt Of the
parties without the safeguard Of trial
and it fixes the degree Of punishment
in accordance with its own ideas of
the oflense.
Justice Story says bills of this kind
were mostly passed in England during
the rebellion. Such bills are generally
directed against individuals by name.
By the Eighth Henry it was declared
that Earl Kildare and his abettors
and confederates or adherents should
stand and be attained and convicted
of high treason as though every one
Of them were properly named as en-
gagged in the fact. So the declaration
in Charles the Second that Earl Caro-
Ian should suffer exile
If the third article of the Constitu.
tion of Missouri had stated in terms
that Cummins was guilty of being in
armed hostility to the United States,
or had said be left the State to avoid
being drafted, and that he was, there
fore, deprived of his right to preach
or teach in the institutions of the land,
there is no question that this would be
bill of attainder in view of the Con
stitution. If the clause, instead of
mentioning his name, had declared all
persons subject TO like deprivations,
the clause would"be equally open to
objection; and if it had declared that
all such persons would be held guilty
provided that by day specified
they did not do certain acts that would
bo within the Constitutional inhibi-
tion. In all these cuses it would be
legislative judgment without the form
Of security of the citizens established
by our tribunals
The question presented was ono of
form and not Of substance. The ex-
isting clause presumes the parties
guilty from which they cannot re-
claim themselves without an expurga-
tory OATH 1t is certain the legal re-
suit is that what cannot be done d.
rectly cannot be done indirectly; the
Constitution deals with substance, not
with shadow II aims at things, not
names. Chief Justice Marshall says
an ca post fdcto law imposes punish
ment for an act not punishable at the
time it was committed, or imposes
penalties additional to those there pre-
scribed Oh different testimony. Thntch-
er against Peck made it an net ofpun-
ishment for what was not punishable
at the time the net was committed.
The act to which Judge Marshall
makes reference was passed by the
Legislature of Georgia, repeating n
previous act by which land had been
granted. II was decided the repeal
ing act had the effect of an ca post
facto law. The clause of the Missou-
ri Constitution did not in terms define
any crime or declare punishment in.
dicted, but presumed the same result
as If the crime had been defined and
the punishment prescribed. II aimed
at some persons who, directly or in-
directly, had aided the rebellion OF
escaped proper responsibility of citi-
zens in time of war, or was intended
20 deprive certain persons of Offices of
trust and emolument Such depriva
tion is punishment; nor is it a way
which is opened by an expurgatory
oath Now some oi these were not
oficnses when the acts were commit
ted. Ii was not then an ofiense to
avoid the enrolment or the sdrait,
it might be a matter
of ccnsure. Some of tho acts at which
the Constitution was directed were
oficnses ut the time, but the clause
which prescribes further penalties is
within the nature of an er post tdcto
law.
The clause in question subverts the
presumption of innocence, and per-
verts the rules of evidence, which by
the common law are fundamental IL
prcsumcs the parties to be guilty, and
declares that innocence can only be
shown in one way, and that by ex-
purgation. Put this clause in the |
form of a Legislative act and il would |
read BE il enacted, etc, that all per-
sons in armed hostility 20 the United |
States shall, on conviction, not only /
be punished as the law provided st
the time of the oflense, but also rem
dered incapable of holding offices of
trust, honor or emolumont, or exercise
the Office of a teacher or a priest, etc
No one could doubt that this third |
article, if thus rendered, would be ca
post fdcto, because it would be adding
a new punishment for an old offonse
not punishable at the time Of the On
nctmcnt; il would impose penalties
without the form Of Judicial proceed