212
CONSTITUTION OF THE U. STATES.
[BOOK III.
§ 1339. Of the same class are
ex post facto laws, that is to say, (in a literal sense,) laws passed after the act done. The terms,
ex post facto laws, in a comprehensive sense, embrace all retrospective laws, or laws governing, or controlling past transactions, whether they are of a civil, or a criminal nature. And there have not been wanting learned minds, that have contended with no small force of authority and reasoning, that such ought to be the interpretation of the terms in the constitution of the United States.
[1] As an original question, the argument would be entitled to grave consideration; but the current of opinion and authority has been so generally one way, as to the meaning of this phrase in the state constitutions, as well as in that of the United States, ever since their adoption, that it is difficult to feel, that it is now an open question.
[2] The general interpretation has been, and is, that the phrase applies to acts of a criminal nature only; and, that the prohibition reaches every law, whereby an act is declared a crime, and made punishable as such, when it was not a crime, when done; or whereby the act, if a crime, is aggravated in enormity, or punishment; or whereby different, or less evidence, is required to convict an offender, than was required, when the act was committed. The Supreme Court have given the following definition. "An
ex post facto law is one, which
ren-
been a matter of regret in succeeding times, however much it may have been applauded flagrante bello.
- ↑ Mr. Justice Johnson's Opinion in Satterlee v. Mathewson, 2 Peters's R. 416, and note, id. App. 681, &c.; 2 Elliot's Debates, 353; 4 Wheat. R. 578, note; Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat. R. 286.
- ↑ See Calder v. Bull, 3 Dull. 386; Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch, 138; S. C. 1 Peters's Cond. R. 172; 2 Peters's Cond. R. 308; The Federalist, No. 44, 84; Journ. of Convention, Supp. p. 431; 2 Amer. Mus. 536; 2 Elliot's Debates, 343, 352, 354; Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat. R. 266, 303, 329, 330, 335; 1 Kent. Comm. Lect. 19, p. 381, 382.
