Clause 3 of Section IX of Article I provides that "No bill of attainder . . . shall be passed."

This clause has given rise to an inconsiderable number of judicial determinations. The principal case in definition of a bill of attainder is that of Cummings v. Missouri,4 in which the court held unconstitutional the test oath of loyalty imposed by the Constitution of Missouri as a condition precedent to holding any state office of trust or profit, or practising the profession of the law or ministrv. The court declared: "The disabilities created by the Constitution of Missouri must be regarded as penalties - they constitute punishment" The oath, the opinion asserts, "was enacted, not from any notion that the several acts designated indicated unfitness for the callings, but because it was thought that the several acts deserved punishment, and that for many of them there was no way to inflict punishment except by depriving the parties who had committed them of some of the rights and privileges of the citizen."

"A bill of attainder is a legislative act, which inflicts punishment without a judicial trial. If the punishment be less than death, the act is termed a bill of pains and penalties. Within the meaning of the Constitution, bills of attainder include bills of pains and penalties. In these cases the legislative body in addition to its legitimate functions, exercises the powers and office of judge, it assumes, in the language of the text-books, judicial magistracy; it pronounces upon the guilt of the party, without any of the forms or safeguards of trial; it determines the sufficiency of the proofs produced, whether conformable to the rules of evidence or otherwise; and it fixes the degree of punishment in accordance with its own notions of the enormity of the offense." 5

3 Chapter LXII (Martial Law. 723. Martial Law Defined).

4 4 Wall. 277; 18 L. ed. 356.

The opinion then goes on to declare that the questioned clauses of the Missouri Constitution are also invalid as ex post facto legislation, being aimed at past rather than future acts.

5 The opinion continues: "If the clauses of the second article of the Constitution of Missouri, to which we have referred, had in terms declared that Mr. Cummings was guilty, or should be held guilty of having been in armed hostility to the United States, or of having entered that State to avoid being enrolled or drafted into the military service of the United States, and, therefore, should be deprived of the right to preach as a priest of the Catholic Church, or to teach in any institution of learning, there can be no question that the clauses would constitute a bill of attainder within the meaning of the federal Constitution. If these clauses, instead of mentioning his name, had declared that all priests and clergymen within the State of Missouri were guilty of these acts, or should be held guilty of them, and hence be subjected to the like deprivation, the clauses would be equally open to objection. And, further, if these clauses had declared that all such priests and clergymen should be so held guilty, and be thus deprived, provided they did not, by a day designated, do certain specified acts, they would be no less within the inhibition of the federal Constitution. In all these cases there would be the legislative enactment creating the deprivation, without any of the ordinary forms and guards provided for the security of the citizen in the administration of justice by the established tribunals. The results which follow, from clauses of the character mentioned, do follow from the clauses actually adopted. The difference between the last case supposed and the case actually presented is one of form only, and not of substance. The existing clauses presume the guilt of the priests and clergymen, and adjudge the deprivation of their right to preach and teach unless the presumption be first removed by their expur-gatory oath. ... in other words, they assume the guilt and adjudge the punishment conditionally. The clauses supposed differ in that they declare the guilt instead of assuming it. The deprivation is effected with equal certainty in the one case as it would be in the other, but not with equal directness. The purpose of the lawmaker in the case supposed would be openly avowed; in the case existing it is only disguised. The legal result must be the same, for what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. The Constitution deals with substance, not shadows. It intended that the rights of the citizen should be secure against deprivation for past conduct by legislative enactment, under any form, however disguised."

In Ex parte Garland,6 decided at the same time as the Cum-mings case, the court held void, as a bill of attainder, the act of Congress of January 24, 1865, prescribing an oath that the deponent had never voluntarily borne arms against the United States, given aid to its enemies, etc., as a qualification for admission as an attorney, before the federal courts.7

A statute making the non-payment of taxes evidence of disloyalty during the Civil War and providing for the forfeiture of lands without a judicial hearing has been held to be a bill of attainder,8 as has a law excluding from the United States Chinese who are citizens of the United States.9