Page:Attainder of treason and confiscation of the property of Rebels - 1863.pdf/34

26 acquired and still has, a clear, definite, and well established meaning. It simply and solely means a mode of changing title to property. It expresses an act by which title to property passes from one to another. It has all the characteristics of a bill of sale of personal property, and a conveyance of real estate; and with one exception is identical with them. When title to property is changed by bill of sale, or conveyance, the owner parts with it voluntarily for a consideration received. When it is changed by forfeiture, the title is taken from the owner against his will, to punish him for his crime. But in each case, the act of changing title is in itself single, complete and finally ended as soon as performed. If we should substitute in the clause of the Constitution in question, the meaning and legal effect of the word "forfeiture," in the place of the word itself, the clause would then read as follows: "Or take from a traitor his title to his property, except during his life." On such a reading it is quite clear, that no more appropriate terms could be used to prohibit taking his property from his heirs after his death. Giving, therefore, to the word "forfeiture," its true meaning and legal effect, there would seem to be no doubt about the construction of this clause of the Constitution, and about the purpose for which our fathers introduced it into that sacred Instrument.

It is deeply to be regretted that the resolution explanatory of the confiscation act was ever passed, and if it was necessary to pass it, that it was not passed in the very words of the Constitution. As passed, it reads thus: "Nor shall any punishment or proceedings under said act be so construed as to work a forfeiture of the real estate of the offender beyond his natural life."

The passage of this resolution was, beyond all question or doubt, intended to prevent the confiscation act from being exposed to the charge of violating the clause of the Constitution in question, by subjecting the provisions of it to the Constitutional restriction, although the language of the resolution may express a limitation upon the act, which the clause of the Constitution does not require.

If the act violates the Constitution, it does so as fully and effectually with, as without the explanatory resolution; for the act forfeits absolutely the personal property of the rebels, and unless it can be shown, that this kind of property is excluded from the operation of this clause of the Constitution, while real