It is the sum of those provisions which results in the divesting of
title forever. For the causes of treason and the ingredients of treason
not amounting to the full crime it declares forfeiture extending beyond
the lives of the guilty parties, whereas the Constitution of the United
States declares that "no attainder of treason shall work corruption of
blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted."
True, there seems to be no formal attainder in this case; still, I think
the greater punishment can not be constitutionally inflicted in a
different form for the same offense. With great respect I am constrained
to say I think this feature of the act is unconstitutional. It would not
be difficult to modify it.

I may remark that this provision of the Constitution, put in language
borrowed from Great Britain, applies only in this country to real or
landed estate.

Again, this act, by proceedings _in rem_, forfeits property for the
ingredients of treason without a conviction of the supposed criminal or
a personal hearing given him in any proceeding. That we may not touch
property lying within our reach because we can not give personal notice
to an owner who is absent endeavoring to destroy the Government is
certainly not very satisfactory. Still, the owner may not be thus
engaged; and I think a reasonable time should be provided for such
parties to appear and have personal hearings. Similar provisions are not
uncommon in connection with proceedings _in rem_.

For the reasons stated, I return the bill to the House, in which it
originated.