Montana Constitution: Treason and Property

Why are these two concepts together?

I wonder about that too.  In a previous article on Article II Section 30, I addressed the state non-relevance of Treason since that is a national crime in wartime.  While the first half of this article is practically a repeat of the U.S. Constitution, the second half goes a little further.  Here it is again:

Article II, Section 30: Treason and descent of estates. Treason against the state shall consist only in levying war against it, or in adhering to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort; no person shall be convicted of treason except on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on his confession in open court; no person shall be attainted of treason or felony by the legislature; no conviction shall cause the loss of property to the relatives or heirs of the convicted. The estates of suicides shall descend or vest as in cases of natural death.

I have read this second half a dozen times and just can't see any connection to the first half.  For us, 50 years later, perhaps the best course is to treat this article like the 1st amendment to the U.S. Constitution: one amendment that spells out five rights.

The second clause about the Legislature is a separation of powers, that the enforcement of law and the charging of a crime rests with the Executive.  The state Legislature cannot charge anyone with treason, no matter how critical or downright antagonistic the person may be to the Legislature.

The remainder of the article is a protection of property for those associated with a primary person.  Relatives of a convicted criminal can rest assured that their own earned capital is not vulnerable to confiscation or fine because of the actions of the criminal.

Unfortunately, it also means the criminal's own property is off limits to excessive fine, for the benefit of any heir.  I find this irritating because loss of capital can be a very good incentive to not commit the crime in the first place.  The only other recourse for the victim is the civil court system.  That's right, sue 'em.

This second half, involving conviction and suicide, is a preservation of capital and property for heirs, who themselves had no involvement in the crime or the suicide.  I can understand the rationale this way, and I totally agree in the case of suicide, but it doesn't relieve me from a nagging question.  What rights or justice do the victims have?

Get our free mobile app