5
of these very words: "forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted;" that the clause was fully discussed, &c. But on referring to the authorities which he cites, I see that the preceding clause, defining treason, was fully discussed, and amendments proposed—some of them adopted, others rejected, and the reasons given for their adoption or rejection. But his language is rather loose, and it does not appear that anything was said as to the precise meaning of the words, "corruption of blood" or "forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted," or what was the intention of the framers of the Constitution in inserting them. "The Federalist," also, is silent on this precise point.
And so, too, on referring to the reports of the debates in Congress, on the passage of the law of 1790, already referred to, not a word appears to have been said about "corruption of blood" or "forfeiture" as they occur in the Constitution, limiting the effects of attainder; although there were in that Congress, men who had taken a prominent part in framing the Constitution. The bill appears to have been perfected in the committee of the Senate, and was passed as reported. Of course we have no means of knowing what was said in the committee.
Perhaps this failure of cotemporary exposition or construction, as evidence of the true sense in which the Constitution, in this particular case, is to be understood, is the less to be regretted, from the fact, that the Supreme Court has laid down the rule on this point, (Wheaton, vol. 9, p. 209), that the framers of the Constitution "must be understood to have employed words in their natural sense, and to have intended what they said, * * * that there is no other rule, than to consider the language of the Instrument, * * * * in connection with the purpose for which it was used."
Tn the absence, therefore, of all authoritative construction by the courts, and of testimony as to the meaning and intention of the framers of the Constitution, we are left under this rule of the court, to general reasoning upon the natural meaning of the words used, and the light which historic circumstances may throw upon them.
The Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 9, says: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto law, shall be passed."
Attainder, in itself, is considered the blemish or disgrace which follows the conviction of treason, or other high crime.
