Year: 1864

VISIONS OF inc clteu ciauSe, although they 1m-
port distinct ideas, both look and insure to the
Same effect in this, that they provide that no
incapacity to inherit shall attack to the heir,
and that no forfeiture shall attach to the es-
tate to prevent the inheritance


The gentleman from Maryland, T Mr.. DA-
yIs1 who once, as he says adopted the con.
struction of the Constitution for which con.
tend, but now sees the matter in another light,
argues, among other suggestions, that the al
legged restrictienso Of the Constitution, having
relation to au attainder, which means for
feiture by the judgr ent of court, are inap-
plicable to the process of Forfeiture under the
confscation act of 1862. He says, if he has
read ari ht, the law does not attach forfeiture
or confscatien ta en- attainder on nviction
of treason. If the gentleman Hillzstu his
attention to the seventh section of that act,
haa will fnd that the entire substance of
the preceedines under that act consists in the
forfeiture, upon proof of treason, by judicial
judgement, of the property of a person shown
in court to have been guilty of the facts which
constitute that crime, and therefore such pro-
ceedings are, in principle, in no way distin-
guished from those had ON indictments for
treason, where forfeiture follows conviction,
and is made part of the judgment and sem
tence. The proceedings under the con6sca-
ton law to attach forfeitue Of the estate of
the party after the period of his life, are jus
deial proceedings to infict the very penalty
which the Constitution prohibits, for the Of
fense upon which the forfeiture is predicated
is treason. The findings and orders of the
court, as provided for in the act, are substan-
tally and in effect attainders of treason
Prescribing new method of doipg forbid
den thing does not help the dilemma. As an
argument to show that the trainers did not in
tend to protect estates from forfeiture to fol
low the laws of blood Inheritance, it is. said
that the costs Of the conviction and fines ad-
Judged are liens upon thepestate of the de-
ceased; and that against the heir it may be
appropriated to pay them. This argument
fails to exhibit the slightest analogy, for fines
and costs are simply like civil debts, to be paid,
out of the estate of a deceased debtor, but do
not involve at all the idea of forfeiture, which
as penalty sweeps away a whole estate with
out regard to value or amount.


But u.ore appreciable reason has been
given by the gentleman from Maryland for
urging his policy. He informs us that the
fixed policy of the Administration is the un-
conditional ccnfscation of the property of
rebels. This may be true at the present time,
but always supposed that the President was
an essential part of an Administration, and
certainly at one time, when this very conGsca-
ton bill was under his consideration, he per-
ceiyed insurmountable constitutional objec
tions to the unrestricted forfeitures provided
for by its terms This state of his mind he
made known to Congress in the most cmphat-
ic way, by his prepared and announced veto,
and, as all know, the result of this was the ex
planatory aud restrictive resolution which it is
now proposed to repeal an incumbrance
upon the effectiveness of the act. The pass
age of the resolution was understood by the
country as confession that the President and
the Democrats were right on the question.


But we of this side of the House are told,
in effect, by the gentleman from Maryland,
that no sympathy for or support of the Ad-
ministration is desired from us; and that any
profession of willingness to aid the Admin
istration in any matter which we can perceive
that is right is received with any cordiality on
his side of the House. The probability is
that we shall not often feel called upon to
make ourselves offensive in that way, for that
is not our principal business here. We have
resting upon, however, solemn obligation to
do precisely what the gentle5nan thinks we.
sligtt better sorbear, to discuss such constitu-
tional questions as may affect the integrity
and permanence of this Government; to con.
tend against the advancing strides of revou-
tionary policy and to invoke the attention OF
our fellow-legislators to the consideration of
the great principles upon which our Govern
ment is founded; to obey the will of our con-
stituents by endeavoring to promote the best
and surest means Of relieving our bleeding
country from the nameless horrors of civil
war, and restoring to the people OF all the
States and to the Government the sacred Con-
stitution of our fathers and the Union as it was.
In these disjointed times, when the doctrines
of the republican fathers are openly impugned
and an infringing revolution is defaclng the
fair features of the peoples free Governments
when essential portiors and principles OF the
l,ofo 10 fho 0np-
scrva ism which is left pnfettered and uncon-
taminated will not fail, in view of the boon to
be struggled for and the calamity to be con-
tended agar st, to show lis entire front and
though the number of its' votaries in the high
places of the @ ovcrnment in this dark day OF
the Republic may be too limited for their i'm
.AdiA.s-a..aAaes, the trust and hope they
have in truth and Justice will insure their in
cessant labor for the salvation Of the country
until either the wished for OR the dreaded con-
summation shall come. :


I occasionally hear gentlemen upon the 9TH
er side of this House allude with apparent
pride and self-gratulation to the success OF.
their party in the elections of the last year
in answer to which, and to suggest reason
for the modification of the boast, 1 propose to
acknowledge the rightfulness of their predom-
nance, when they wiilshuw to us that upon
fair, honest, and uneoerced canvass they could
have had a majority Of the votes of freemen,
qualified and citizenized, in the States and
precincts where they won their victories.


Aside from the constitutional inability of
Congress to make and put in operation such a
law as the conscription act of 1862 would be
without the restriction of the resolution which
was intended-t to restrain its scope to the limits
of the Constitution, / am fully persuaded that,
as matter of policy, it assures no Befieht to
the Government or the people to apologize for
even a possible infraction of the Constitution.


One of my worthy colleagues Mr.. GAR
FIELD says on this subject that he wouli not
break the Constitution at all, unless it should
become necessary to overleap its barriers to
save the Government and the Union. can
assure nv conservative colleague that no such