Page:Attainder of treason and confiscation of the property of Rebels - 1863.pdf/22

14 or always losing, the same title. Like sale, escheat, &c., forfeiture must be instantaneous and completed at the time.

It may be objected to this view of the meaning of the clause of the Constitution under consideration, that it is makes the phrases "corruption of blood," and "forfeiture, except during the life of the person attainted" to mean precisely the same thing, and thus a tautology, which it is not to be presumed will exist in the language of that Instrument, There would certainly be great force in the objection if it were well founded.

But the phrases are not synonymous. There may be corruption of blood, without forfeiture beyond the life of the person attainted, and forfeiture, without corruption of blood. In the former case, the children would have the right to acquire and hold property, to vote, &c., but they could not inherit property from a grandfather through their father who had been attainted. In the latter case, the children might be involved in the attainder so far as the loss of their father’s property is concerned, while collateral heirs, as children and descendants of a brother of the attainted traitor, might inherit property from their common ancestors—say, their grandfather—even when in order to do so, it would be necessary to trace the title through the attainted person. The attainder, in this case, would affect his children, but not his collateral heirs.

There is one other consideration that seems to confirm this view of the Constitution. It will not be supposed for a moment, that the framers of the Constitution intended to extend to rebels and traitors any immunity beyond what might be extended to other criminals, The idea is absurd. But in other cases, we punish by forfeitures and fines as well as imprisonment, &c. The court may sentence a man to a fine for a definite amount. This fine may take all his property, personal as well as real, and yet nobody ever supposed, that that was not an alienation forever, or that the property must be restored to the heirs of the guilty man after his death. The transfer is absolute, and the title acquired in this way is as good for the holder of such property as any that is known to our laws.

Hence, there are cases constantly occurring, in which punishment for crimes does work alienation of property, extending beyond the life of the person convicted and disgraced by the crime. Why should an exception be made in favor of traitors