278 



CONGRESS, U. S. 



says that the science of philology is progressive, 

 and that a word "which meant one thing at one 

 time and in one age may mean another thing at 

 another time and in a different age, and upon 

 that principle he says that the word 'except' in 

 the Constitution means 'unless,' and then he 

 draws, the conclusion that the only meaning of 

 the Constitution is that the proceedings shall 

 bo commenced in the life of the person attainted. 



" It will be borne in mind that the phrase- 

 ology of our Constitution was most carefully 

 guarded. It was as pure and simple as the spirit 

 of the Constitution was kind and liberal. The 

 word except, in 1787, had as plain a meaning 

 then as it has now. The word 'unless' was not 

 its synonym then, nor is it now, except in very 

 rare and remote instances. 



"But suppose the gentleman should by some 

 technical logomachy find out that the word 

 'except' meant sometimes 'unless;' he does 

 not find the word ' unless ' in the Constitution, 

 and if he had it would make no difference in 

 the argument. The word ' except,' according 

 to my philology, which has not progressed very 

 rapidly, is derived from the Latin words ex and 

 capio, to take from, to exclude from, to leave 

 out. This is the primary, and not the second- 

 ary meaning into which the gentleman would 

 distort it. That is the meaning always attrib- 

 uted to it by all the public writers who have 

 commented on this part of the Constitution. 

 This, too, is the ordinary and simple meaning 

 of the Constitution. It 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 except during the life of the 

 person attainted.' There are some clauses which 

 interpret themselves. Discussion only obscures, 

 and 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 ? It is still a limitation on the power which 

 works corruption of blood or forfeiture, and 

 that limit is during the life of the person at- 

 tainted of treason. That word 'unless' does 

 not change the meaning of it at all. You may 

 Mse it with all emphasis, and still the limitation 

 would be on forfeiture during life. 



" But, Mr. Speaker, there can be no such con- 

 struction given to it. The word ' except,' ac- 

 cording to Worcester, "Webster, and all other 

 dictionaries, in its first and best meaning sim- 

 ply means ' to 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. It 

 was taken out of and from the effects of the 

 forfeiture. The forfeiture never went beyond 

 the life. And there are good reasons for such 

 ft construction which the gentleman from Indi- 

 ana 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 com- 



mon sense. He might have found them in the 

 history of the English parliament. He might 

 have found them in the history of Eng- 

 lish and Irish confiscations. It 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 thoso 

 incapable of crime, that property wlich alwaya 

 in cases of intestacy, and generally in cases of 

 will, the law gives to the children, and which 

 by natural right, and according to every code 

 of inheritance known among men, always goes 

 to the children in the absence of a will. The 

 only authority which can be offered by the gen- 

 tleman for his construction is this Virginia 

 judge. The gentleman has brought no author- 

 ity here for the purpose of sustaining his view 

 none whatever. He has evidently been dili- 

 gent, and has run over all the authorities, and 

 found them against him. Can the gentleman 

 name one authority which sustains his view of 

 the case except this trashy decision of tin? 

 Judge Underwood ? Not one." 



Mr. Davis, of Maryland, followed, saying: 

 " No attainder shall work corruption of blood 

 or forfeiture, except during the life of the per- 

 son attainted. Now I take it that the meaning 

 of that clause is that the forfeiture worked shall, 

 must be effected during life. The honorable 

 gentleman from Ohio, and those who think with 

 him, would construe it to be that the forfeiture ^ 

 when worked shall only endure for the life of the 

 party. Palpably the latter is the incorrect and 

 the former the legal meaning. The purpose as- 

 sumed is the protection of the offspring from 

 punishment for the guilt of the ancestor. But 

 a fine is equally taken from the offspring, as 

 land ; yet no one denies the right to fine a per- 

 son attainted. There was, however, an effect 

 of attainder that did punish the offspring, and 

 the offspring alone. Every student of Black- 

 stone knows this, that the judgment convicting 

 a person of treason operated a corruption of 

 blood. The corruption of blood stopped the 

 transmission of hereditable blood to any heir 

 of the person attainted ; so that the legal effect 

 of conviction for treason under the law of Eng- 

 land was, .first, to forfeit .all the property, real 

 and personal, of the person attainted, and, sec- 

 ondly, to corrupt his blood, destroy its heri- 

 table quality, so that he could neither take land 

 by descent himself, nor transmit heritable blood 

 to the persons who would, but for his attainder, 

 have been his heirs. He could, in the language 

 of the law, have no heirs. The attainder cor- 

 rupted his blood, and there was no hereditablo 

 blood transmitted to them. 



" Now, suppose any ancestor of any person 

 convicted and attainted for treason died the day 

 after the execution, owning lands, they could 

 not pass to his son, nor to any collateral rela- 

 tion claiming by descent through him, because 

 the operation of judgment, besides ^forfeiting 

 the land owned by the party in his lifetime, 

 had corrupted his blood, and no one could trace 



