Year: 1864

letter laws, from the whole history Of on


common law with reference to forfeiture


to show that there should be another and
different Interpretation given to the Con


stitution from that which was given by tn


men who made the Constitution, by tn
;men who passed the law of 1890, to carr,


out that clause of the Constitution to whiol


have referred. and by all the interpreter


of the Constitution to whom he himself ha


referred. He says that the science Of philo
logy is progressive, and that word whicl
meant one thing at one time and in one ag'
may mean another thing at another time an(
in different age, and upon that principle h,
says that the word ''except" in the Consti
tuition means ''unless' and then he draws
like the Virginia judge, the conclusion thai
the only meaning Of the Constitution Il
that the proceedings shall be commenced
in the life of the person attainted.


| 1t will be borne in mind that the phrase
ology of our Constitution was most careful
ly guarded. 1t was as pure and simple as
the spirit of the Constitution was kind and
liberal. The word except, in 1877, had as
plain a meaning then as it has now. The
word sunless" was not its synonym then
nor is it now, except in very rare and re-
mote instances.


But, suppose the gentleman should by
some technical logomachy find that the
word ''except" meant sometimes "unless;'
he does not find the word sunless" in the
Constitution, and if he had it would make
no difference in the argument. The word
except" according to my philoligy,. which
mas not progressed very rapidly, is derived
from the Latin words er and cdpiO, to take
from, to exclude from, to leave out. This
| is the primary, and not the secondary mean
ing into which the gentleman would distort
| it. That is the meaning always attributed
to it by all the public writers who have
commented on this part of the Constitution
This, too, is the ordinary and simple mean
| ing of the Constitution. 1t reads in this
way, and cannot be made to read in any
other: but no attainder of treason shall
work corruption of blood or forfeiture EX-
cEPT during the life of the person attaint-
ed" There are some clauses which inter-
pref themselves. Discussion only obscures,
end does not elucidate their meaning. This
clause is one of them.


| Now, suppose the gentleman inserts his
favorite word "unless;" how does that help
him? 1t is still a limitation on the power
which works corruption of blood or forfei-
ture, and that limit is during the life of the
person attainted OF treason. That word
| uillcSS uoeo HUI CiihilHc blio uiCdiiihR VI IL
at all. You may use it with all emphasis,
and still the limitation would be on forfeit
ture during life.


But, Mr.. Speaker, there can be no
such construction given to it. The word
except" according to Worcester, Webster,
and all other dictionaries, in its first and
best meaning, simply means Ito exclude
FROM" so that when the Constitution said
that the attainder of treason should not
work forfeiture of property except during
the life of the person attainted, it meant
that the forfeiture should exclude the fee,
| 1t was taken out of and from the effects OF
| the. forfeiture. The forfeiture never went
beyond the life. And there are good rea-
sons for such construction which the gen.
tleman from Indiana seemed to overlook.
He might have found them laid down by
Judge Story. He might have found them
| in the United States courts decisions. He
might have found them in common sense.
He might have found them in the history OF
the English Parliament. He might have
found them in the history of English and
Irish confiscations. 1t was intended by our
Constitution to prevent forever this crime
of Government taking from those not in
legal existence, from minors, from the weak
and helpless, from those not guilty, from
those incapable Of crime. that property
which always in cases of intestacy, and
generally in cases of will, the law gives to
Che children, and which, by natural right,
and according to every code of inheritance
known among men, always goes to the child
ren in the absence ofawill. The only author
ity which can be offered by the gentleman
for his construction is this Virginia judge.
The gentleman has brought no authority
here for the purpose of sustaining his view
none whatever. He has evidently been
diligent, and has run over all the authori-
ties, and found them against him. Can the
gentleman name one authority which sus-
tains his view of the case except this trashy
decision of this Judge Underwood? Not
one. He relies solely on his progressive
philology. So it is progressive. This war
Is learning us many new meanings to old
words and terms. A patriot used to mean
one who loved his whole country; who was
devoted, by principle of sympathy and
union, to every part; who had a common
feeling and a common interest with those
who lived under the same Government or
are contained within the same natural or
historical boundaries; who cherished the tie
that holds the country together, and who
held that evil to any part Of their fellow
countrymen was evil to themselves. Now
it means otherwise. Philology is progress
| i've. Now patriot is one who can break
the supreme law, who can hate half his ma
ton, who can rejoice in the bayonet at the
election and the greenback In corruption;
who is anxious to see war of extermina-
| tion, and who, as the climax of his devotion,
| is willing to see the last one of his wife's
lblood-relations offered upon the alter.


Philology is progressive. A traitor now
| is man who loves the old order who dis
likes to see the old Constitution dismantled,
who is willing to make any sacrifice that
will restore the Union, and whose very love
of those who used to be underthe same old
family roof-tree amounts to such sympa-
thy that he would love to have them all
restored.


A philanthropist used to mean friend OF
man. Now it means friend of the black;
or, rather, such friendship as drags the ne
gro from home, happiness, and content, to
pauperism, crime, and starvation! Philology
Is progressive.


But Judge Story did not progress as the
gentleman from Indiana in his philology;
lbut. kept the old meaning of the fathers
(which was for all time. My friend from


Indiana said that he could find but little
written by our commentators upon this
lmooted clause of the Constitution, When
'he turned to Judge Curtis he found but one


single sentence: "The punishment of trea.


son is not prescribed by the Constitution
It is left to be prescribed by Congress, will
the Limitation, however that no conviction
for treason shall work corruption Of bloot
or forfeiture Of property ercept during tn