and declared its consequences to be corruption of blood and forfeiture of estates. The Constitution leaves it to Congress to say whether attainder shall follow conviction or not, and if so what the consequences shall be; only the attainder shall not work corruption of blood or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted. Congress has never included attainder in the punishment of treason, and the word is not found in our laws. An act to suppress insurrection, approved July 17, 1862, sometimes called the Confiscation Act, provided that the property of six classes of persons named, engaged in the Rebellion or giving it aid and comfort, should be seized and confiscated and the proceeds applied to the support of the army of the United States. But the operation of this act was limited, as will appear in the next paragraph. The present law expressly declares: "No conviction or judgment shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture."

568. Meaning of the Limitation.-A question has arisen as to the phrase, "except during the life of the person attainted." This question is whether the phrase limits the time within which the corruption shall be worked, or the time that the forfeiture shall run in case there be one. Must the forfeiture be worked in the life of the traitor? Or shall the property of a traitor that has been confiscated, be restored to his heirs on his death? If the first be the meaning, then the dam imposed by conviction of treason would be removed by the death of the offender, and property could pass by, as from grandfather to grandson. The question has not been judicially determined, and is an open

one.

In the case of real estate, President Lincoln understood the language in the second of the two senses. To meet his view, Congress adopted a joint resolution construing the act of June 17, 1862, as follows: "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 Supreme Court has sustained the act.

569. Treason Against a State. -The Articles of Confederation did not recognize treason against the United States; all treason in that

period was treason against a State. A motion to give Congress the sole power to declare its punishment was lost in the Convention, so that the powers of the States to punish treason remained unchanged. Practically these powers have amounted to little; but Mr. Johnston well remarks that "they fasten the idea of allegiance to a State, and that carried into secession the multitude who disliked secession but dreaded to commit treason against the State."

Other provisions of the Constitution in relation to treason are discussed in connection with other subjects, as the subject of impeach

ment.

CHAPTER XXXIX.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: THE JUDICIARY.

ARTICLE III.

REFERENCES.

Coxe, Judicial Powers and Unconstitutional Legislation; Davis, Appendix to the Reports of the Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States from September 24, 1789, to the end of the October term 1888, (United States Reports, No. 131; an important series of cases, decisions, and documents, by the Reporter to the Court); Miller, The Constitution of the U. S., Chaps. VII.-VIII.; Bryce, The American Commonwealth, Chaps. XXII.-XXIV. (Chapter XXIII. is an admirable statement of the way in which American Courts were led to deliver constitutional decisions, and to set laws enacted by State Legislatures and by Congress aside as null and void, being in conflict with constitutions, State or National).

570. The American Government Constitutional.— The grand features of the American Government are delineated in written constitutions. These constitutions are the paramount law, -the Constitution of the United States of the whole country, and the constitutions of the several States of those States, save in so far as they are limited by the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States. All laws, National and State, are enacted with reference to these constitutions. Accordingly, what is called Constitutional Law, if it did not originate in the United States, has here reached its fullest development, and forms the peculiar feature of our jurisprudence. A constitutional objection to a measure in the United States is, that the measure conflicts with the paramount law; a constitutional objection to a measure in England amounts only to this, the measure is a departure from the way in which things have heretofore been done.

571.

Constitutional Decisions.- The supremacy of the Constitution over all laws, State and National, opens to the Federal courts a field unknown to the courts of the Old

World. They decide constitutional cases. The Supreme Court is called upon to decide cases involving the question whether a law of Congress is in conformity with the Constitution, and also cases calling in question the conformability of State laws to the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States. Once it was denied that the Court had such powers, but it has asserted them, and the assertion has been sustained by the Nation.1 The State Courts also pass upon the conformability of State legislation to the State constitutions.

572. Meaning of Unconstitutional.- Judge Cooley states the meaning of the expression as follows: "When a statute is adjudged to be unconstitutional, it is as if it had never been. Rights cannot be built up under it; contracts which depend upon it for their consideration are void; it constitutes a protection to no one who has acted under it, and no one can be punished for having refused obedience to it before the decision was made. And what is true of an act void in toto, is true also as to any part of an act which is found to be unconstitutional, and which, consequently, is to be regarded as having never, at any time, been possessed of any legal force." 2

573. Exercise of the Power.-Obviously, to declare laws of Congress null and void is a responsible duty. The three branches of the Government are of equal rank and dignity; each one is supreme in its own sphere, and invasions of the sphere of one by the others would soon destroy their harmonious working. This responsibility the Supreme Court has always felt. "It is an axiom of our jurisprudence," said Mr. Justice Swayne in 1866, "that an act of Congress is not to be pronounced unconstitutional unless the defect of power to pass it is so clear as to admit of no

1 Marbury v. Madison, I Cranch 137, and Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheaton 412. 2 Constitutional Limitations, p. 222.

doubt. Every doubt is to be resolved in favor of the validity of the law. Since the organization of the Supreme Court but three acts of Congress have been pronounced by that body void or unconstitutional."

1

574. A Case Must Arise.-The Supreme Court cannot express its opinion as to the constitutionality of a law until a case arises fairly involving that question. For instance, in one hundred years it has not had an opportunity to declare the meaning of the phrase in relation to attainder, "except during the life of the person attainted." Should Congress enact a law for the punishment of treason making forfeiture of lands perpetual, and should a case arise under this law, then the Court could give the phrase an authoritative interpretation. In 1857 it pronounced the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, although it had been on the statute-book since 1820.

575. Political Power of the Judiciary.—The theory of the Constitution is, that the three departments of the Government are coordinate, each one being independent of the other two. Otuside of the impeaching power, no department is amenable to either of the others. No power has been given to the Courts to construe the Constitution for Congress or the President: each department must construe the instrument for itself. At the same time, judicial constructions of the laws and the Constitution directly affect the two political departments, as will be explained below.

I. The ordinary mode of enforcing the laws is by means of the courts; the courts reach men through their decrees and judgments ; and the question whether they will withhold or grant these or not, makes the judges the interpreters of the law. If the Court of final resort thinks a law unconstitutional, it will not enforce it. Congress can reenact a law thus declared null and void, but the Court would again refuse to enforce it. Nor would the Government be apt to bring a second suit to enforce a law once pronounced null and void. This is a practical restraint upon both the Legislature and the Executive.

2. Congress and the Executive naturally entertain great respect for the constitutional decisions of the Supreme Court. These decisions not only indicate what legislation the Court will enforce, but

1 U. S. v. Rhodes, 1 Abbot's U. S. Reports, 52,