possession of, nor transmit it by descent to his heirs, nor shall any person make title by descent through him, though from a

more remote ancestor.

In respect to the forfeiture, the meaning seems to be, that congress shall not impose a forfeiture beyond the term of the offender's life, but it may be abolished altogether, and in this sense, it has been understood and acted on in the law, for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States, passed on the 30th of April, 1790, the language of which is as follows: -no conviction or judgment for any of the offences aforesaid, (in which are included treason, murder, robbery, piracy, and other crimes,) shall work corruption of blood or any forfeiture of estate.

But a future legislature is neither bound to enforce this humane part of the act, nor to continue other parts which bear the cast of some severity.

The immediate forfeiture of the possessions of an offender, although its hardship in capital cases is felt, not by himself, but by his family reduced to want, has been vindicated on the supposition, that it would tend to set the paternal feelings in motion on the side of the commonwealth; acerbum, says Cicero in a letter to Brutus, parentum scelera filiorum pœnis lui, sed hoc preclarè legibus comparatum est, ut caritas liberorum amicitiores parentes reipublicæ redderet.

And such considerations may have some effect; but the depravity that leads to the hazard of life, seldom refrains from the commission of crime by adverting to the sufferrings of children. The bad citizen is most commonly a bad parent.

The affliction felt by such near relations, both for the guilt and the loss of the parent, is unreasonably aggravated by their being thus subjected to partake, though in a different form, of the punishment inflicted, when, in common with

their fellow citizens, they may have sincerely abhorred the crime.

But while in this particular, opinion has been divided, all seem to have condemned, and many to have been at a loss to account for the extension of this penal principle to the destruction of the power to inherit through the person attainted.

We cannot be reconciled to it, by being told that property, being the creature of society, we have no right to complain of the manner in which it is regulated,* for, on such grounds, the most unjust laws might be defended.

But we may account for its origin from a former state of society, which has been greatly altered in modern times. It is an ancient feudal principle, that where there is no inheritable blood, the land shall escheat to the lord of the fee. Applying, or rather perverting the doctrine of present forfeiture to the incapacity of taking by descent, was the first and very easy step in a process, by which all that would have vested in the criminal, became the property of the lord. The avidity of the lord, which was thus gratified, cast about for still more prey and as the attainder of the offender removed him from being the immediate object of a descent, the principle, it was found, could also be successfully applied to his being the channel through which others might inherit. If the grandfather, after the attainder of the son for treason or felony, died seized of land and intestate, the grandson could not inherit, because he could not be his heir, as he was not the heir of his own father. By a fiction engrafted on the substantial punishment of the father, the grandfather was considered as dying without heirs, and his lands also escheated to the lord.

Considerations on the law of forfeitures, attributed to Charles Yorke.

Thus the doctrine is resolved into an odious fiction, founded on a compound of cruelty and avarice, springing from a perversion of the system of tenures, and at variance with the liberal principles of modern times and the very elements of justice.

Had it been prohibited by the Constitution in regard to all offences whatever, it would have merited public approbation.

CHAPTER XII.

OF THE EXECUTIVE POWER.

In the formation of a republic there is perhaps no part more difficult than the right constitution of the executive authority. The three qualities of promptness, vigour, and responsibility, ought to be combined in it. In the two other branches, more deliberation is necessary. Whether to make laws or to expound them, the motions should, in general, be slow and cautious. The acts of either, when constitutionally consummate, are obligatory on those whose duty it is to enforce them. The office of executing a law, excludes the right to judge of it, and of course does not require that the executive power should concur in opinion on its utility. When the meaning and intention of the legislature are ascertained, and the law itself is constitutional, delay in the execution of it is culpable.. The public, which may blame the legislator, requires of the executive officer to carry it into effect, because to subvert the order of government, is one of the greatest evils that can befal it. Every individual is bound to obey the law, however objectionable it may appear to him: the executive power is bound not only to obey, but to execute it. To hesitate, to delay, perhaps to lose the proper moment of action, would approach to entire disobedience. A prompt submission, to the law, and an immediate preparation to enforce it, are

therefore absolutely necessary in relation to the authority from which the law has emanated. But we must also consider this quality in respect to its effect. The operation of a law, whenever the time of acting upon it has arrived, should be immediate and decisive. The law is a power of which the force and existence should never be unfelt or forgotten. Like the pillar which led the Israelites through the wilderness, it should always be in sight. The commonwealth in which its pre-eminence is not constantly present to the mind, is in danger. But the sensation of its continued presence, and uncontrollable power, will be greatly weakened, if time is suffered to elapse without necessity, after its action ought to take place.

On general political principles therefore, as delay is reprehensible, promptness is a duty, the non-performance of which may enable transgressors to escape. For this reason, it is both wise and humane that the execution of laws should be speedy; that is, that no unreasonable interval should be allowed between the violation of the law and the adoption of such measures as may be necessary to enforce it.

For this purpose the executive must also be endowed with sufficient energy. It has been justly said that a feeble executive implies a feeble execution of the government. A feeble execution is but another phrase for a bad execution; and a government ill executed, whatever it may be in theory, must in practice, be a bad government.* It is in fact only by the execution of the Constitution and the laws, that the true value of either is known. If they are left as dead letters, they confer no benefit, and avert no evil. Principles without practice are like the intentions of an individual without acts. An energy of action, duly proportioned to the exigencies that arise, must be seated in the executive power. The proportion

Fed. No: 70.