a large majority of the different States. We understand what it means. It has obtained a legal construction. It is what we want, as it conveys exactly our meaning, Now, by putting in new language, I care not how plain we may make it, it will not On motion of Mr. MORRISON, Resolved, That the committee on the elective franchise be instructed to inquire into the expediency of incorporating in the Constitution the following provision: "that for the purpose of voting, no person shall be deemed to have gained or lost a resi-be settled until there has been adjudication dence during his attendence as a student of any seminary of learning." On motion of Mr. COOK, the Convention then resolved itself into committee of the whole, and resumed the consideration of "Article 1, Bill of Rights," Mr. BRITAIN in the chair. Section 11 was then read-No person, for the same offence, shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment. All persons shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, except for capital offences, when the proof is evident or the presumption great, and the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when, in case of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it. ៩ The CHAIR-The question is on the amendment, by Mr BARTOW, to the amendment of the gentleman from Calhoun, [Mr. CRARY.] The original section you have heard. The gentleman from Calhoun moves to strike out "for the same offence shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment," and insert, "after acquittal for the same offence." To that amendment the gentleman from Genesee moves the following: After "acquittal," insert the words "upon the merits." upon it. People cannot tell what adjudication will be made upon any particular set of words, and as we know what this means why should we alter it? I therefore hope that the section will remain as it is. Mr. BARTOW, of Genesee-It seems to me that the amendment to the amendment is proper. The original words have a definite and well understood meaning, and cover all the ground assumed by the gentleman from Calhoun. If the amendment to the amendment is lost, we shall incur the charge of essentially changing the laws. It will permit a criminal to escape upon a mere technicality. We do not wish to make a law that should have this tendency. If the amendment to the amendment is adopted, we shall show to our courts that a mere technicality will not shield a criminal from a second trial. The amendment to the amendment was adopted. Mr. WALKER-I believe that the original section, as expressed in the bill, is more explicit, and has a better settled meaning than the amendment. Mr. ROBERTSON-If we adopt this amendment, it will be necessary to prove whether the case was tried upon the merits or not. Suppose that it was not a good indictment; that neither the Prosecuting Attorney, nor the court, nor the jury saw that there was any technical defect in the indictment, how shall it be known afterwards whether the case was tried upon its merits or not? By calling in counsel, or the bystanders, to show how the case was decided? And can this be called an improvement; or that it mends a matter that was before clear, by leaving it thus undefined and unascertained, as all would say the testimony of witnesses in such cases would be? Calling again the jury; having in effect a trial within a trial, to see whether the merits were really canvassed upon the former trial? And shall we change a well known rule of law for such a vague course? Is any thing gained by it? A gentleman said they are words not understood by the masses. I will at any rate vouch for the knowledge in that respect of the masses of Macomb. And, sir, it cannot be true, that in this age of progression, we should so far have retrograded as not to understand the use of a simple word in the English language? Where is the gentleman who will tell me that the word "acquittal" is better, or more easily understood, than the word in the original section? And sir, I was astonished, in the debate yesterday, to hear gentlemen use in explanation, the words used by the committee. They said by "acquittal," they meant that a person should not Mr. FRALICK-I consider the language of the section, as it was reported, as nearly right. It is the language of the Constitution of the United States and of We know that the meaning of the words has been questioned by the ablest lawyers of the land. No complaint is more common than that language is employed that is unintelligible, when other. terms might easily be found that would obviate the difficulty. It is to meet this complaint that this amendment is proposed, and on that ground I shall support it. be tried again; that he should not be put have a multitude of decisions to give exagain in jeopardy. Surely, sir, a word planations and meanings. used as an explanation cannot be so hard to be understood as an original. It speaks very little in favor of the masses, to suppose that the use of a simple English word is a mystery; and there is surely intelligence to follow out the long, well settled construction which is found in our courts. You may simplify, until by that very attempt, probably, you introduce new rules. It seems to me, therefore, that the amendment ought not to prevail. Mr. J. D. PIERCE--I would ask the gentleman from Macomb one question: If it has been so simple, so plain, why has it been necessary to have any adjudication upon the subject? Mr. BEARDSLEY-I am opposed to the amendment as it now stands, with the amendment to the amendment engrafted. After a man is acquitted, unless we uproot fundamental principles, we cannot ask the courts to reverse their verdict. And I trust that this Convention will not uproot laws that are respected even under tyrannical governments. When an individual has been once tried, that he shall never again be put upon trial for the same of again be put upon trial for the same of fence, is a principle in all laws; and it is a pity, while we are boasting of our progressive freedom, that we should enact any law that would tend to perpetuate oppression. If it is so simple and plain, as the gentleman from Macomb remarks, why was it necessary to adjudicate upon it? And, if it required a legal explanation, then it cannot be plain to the people. Mr. ROBERTSON-I would explain, that there has been no difficulty at any time with the lawyers, the clergy or laymen, with respect to the meaning of the original clause as reported. What is "put in jeopardy ?" It has been decided that a person was only put which he was tried was a good and valid in jeopardy when the indictment under indictment. If this amendment were adopted, would there not be the same necessity for adjudication on the words used there? It might defeat the end of justice. One man would construe it as meaning one thing, and another, another. An indictment might be quashed on the quibble of an officer, and the criminal struction of the meaning of the words might go nnwhipped of justice. The conused in the original is settled, but the new will have to be settled by a course of decisions. Mr. CRARY said he had heard a great number of speeches on the amendment proposed. He wished a statement of the exceptions where a person is not put in jeopardy by being tried by a jury. He called on the gentlemen who opposed the Now, sir, I think that every thing that amendment to name these exceptions. we do, all the language that we use, should When named, they would show that the be so plain, that the man who runs may amendment was proper, and was at the read. As the amendment to the amend-same time expressed in words that all ment stands, I shall vote against it, but am in favor of the original amendment. Mr. SULLIVAN-I understand it to be conceded that the language of the amendment does not differ materially from the language of the original, and the only object proposed is, to introduce language that will be more distinctly understood. Now, it being conceded that these two terms are precisely of the same signification, how can difficulty arise about parol testimony? It is idle to say that this language is clear and definite, when we could understand. It was said that the old phraseology was easy to be understood, and yet so late as the year 1824, the Supreme Court of the United States had been called on to make a decision on the subject. After having two or three more decisions, all might be informed what it was to be twice put in jeopardy. Several of the new constitutions had laid aside the old phraseology. He named among the number, Rhode Island, New Jersey and Iowa. Others retained the language, and as it was used in the constitu tion of the United States. He preferred the language of the amendment, and hoped it would be adopted. He, however, wanted the explanation of the delegate from Macomb [Mr. ROBERTSON] of the words "twice put in jeopardy," and he would take his seat for the purpose of hearing it. Mr. HANSCOM called for a division of the question. Section 12. Every person has a right to bear arms for the defence of himself and the State. Mr. BAGG moved to insert the word "white" between the words "every" and "person." Mr. B. said-I move the amendment simply because I wish, so far as our sable population is concerned, under the operation of our laws, to keep them in their present sphere. I would extend to them benefits and charity, &c., &c., but I would The motion to strike out prevailed. The question to insert was carried. Mr. LOVELL moved to strike out "cap-not let them come into our civil, political, ital offences" and insert "murder and treason." The amendment was carried. Mr. ROBERTSON-I would suggest that the words "writ of habeas corpus," in the third line, are obscure. I am satisfied the masses are unable to understand them, and wish some gentleman to explain them, as I feel incompetent to throw out any suggestions myself. social, conjugal or connubial relations. Mr. WILLIAMS-I would like to put one question. I know in Kalamazoo a native born citizen, a man of large possessions, who is a black man. Would you not put the means of self-defence in that man's hands? If a gang of kidnappers were to come into the State, would you deprive that man of the means of defending his home, his children and his property? Mr. SKINNER moved that section eleven be amended by adding after the Mr. BAGG-There may be isolated word "merits," the following: "Provi- cases of individuals to whom I would exded, however, that no acquittal or convic-tend more liberality than to others, but tion on his own complaint, or at his instance, shall be a bar to a second trial and conviction for the same offence." Mr. HANSCOM-The original section, with the many amendments, is so obscure that we cannot understand it. Mr. SKINNER-I do not know that the phraseology is correct. My object was merely to prevent a sham trial. An of fence is committed, and the criminal instigates a mock trial against himself--a small fine is imposed, perhaps, for a grave of fence, and thus the ends of justice are defeated. Mr. WITHERELL-There would have been no occasion to amend had the section stood as it did originally, because the word "jeopardy" covered the whole ground, and adjudications have been made upon it. We shall, by the method we are pursuing, require new adjudications upon new subjects. The courts have decided, again and again, that no prosecution upon a complaint of an individual himself, or at his instigation, will excuse him from an indictment for the offence. It may be necessary now to introduce it, as the amendments have been carried. The amendment was lost. must go on general principles, which are so extensive that I should have to forego them, as they cannot adapt themselves to isolated cases. This is a general principle which I look to. Colored people, negroes and Indians should not be allowed to bear arms with us. It will be made a pretext with them to get into other circles. I am for keeping them where they are, believing them to be a species at least one link beneath us. The moment you let them into the political circle, you open the social and every other circle. I trust the Convention will never leave out the word "white" in the organic law. Mr. BUSH would ask the gentleman from Wayne if this was a new feature in the constitution. Mr. CORNELL--This would take away his natural rights, the right of self-defence, which has never been given up. Mr. McLEOD-There is an old Latin maxim, "satis est leoni prostrasse," which, translated, signifies it is quite sufficient for the lion to have conquered. He goes no further-he does not insult. This unfortunate class of people are thrown almost out of the protection of our laws. They are named with contumely and reproach, zen." Mr. WILLIAMS would ask the gentleman from Livingston [Mr. CROUSE] if he would not allow the women to defend themselves. The amendment offered by Mr. BAGG did not prevail. Mr. BAGG moved to strike out the words and the State." In that article it would incorporate the colored population with our white citizens. He was opposed to obliging them to do military duty, and thus insinuate themselves among us. The amendment was negatived. Sec. 13. The military shall, in all cases, and at all times, be in strict subordination to the civil power. Sec. 14. No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner; nor in time of war, but in a manner prescribed by law. Mr. S. CLARK moved to amend by inserting after the word "owner," the words " or occupant." Mr. WITHERELL was opposed to the amendment, because it was unnecessary. It is always understood that the person occupying a house, so far as that is concerned, is the owner. Mr. S. CLARK would leave out the necessity of such a construction, by making the language clear and explicit. The motion prevailed. Sec. 16. No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, shall be passed. Mr. BUTTERFIELD moved to amend by adding after the word "contracts," the words "or their remedies.” Mr. B. said he believed it was well understood that the Legislature had, from time to time, passed acts that have effected the remedies relating to contracts. The remedy, if not the obligation of contracts, is effected if the Legislature shall pass any act changing the time of payment, and making the act applicable to existing contracts. The Legislature have, at different times, passed exemption and stay laws that have operated retrospective. ly; and the time of redemption upon mortgage sales has been repeatedly changed, and he [Mr. B.] believed the courts had decided that the law applied as well to mortgages existing at the time of the passage of the act, as to those subsequently executed. He proposed that any alteration in the laws relating to the collection of debts, as in any way effecting contracts, should have a prospective effect. wise, where is the safety of the parties to a contract, if the Legislature shall be permitted to step in and say that any part of the remedy may be changed. The remedy should be as sacred as the obligation of the contract itself; and yet, our Legislatures have acted upon the principle, that if the obligation of a contract remained the same, they were at liberty to make any change in the remedy that their wisdom or interest might dictate. He [Mr. B.] wished by this amendment to prevent such vascilating legislation in future. Other The amendment did not prevail. Mr. BUSH proposed to amend by inserting after the word "contract, spective.exemption law." 66 or retro Mr. WITHERELL did not know how far that language would extend; whether beyond the 16th section or not; and whether it would not require some adjudication as to the meaning of "exemption." It is not a term known to our ancient laws. Mr. BACKUS had no doubt but some such provision as that intimated, would be extremely desirable, to render plain the position the Legislature holds in relation to contracts or remedies; but the one passed upon, and the one before the Convention, must be subject to serious objections. No doubt the present construction of the article contained in the Bill of Rights in our constitution, as well as similar provisions in the constitutions of other States, and the constitution of the United States, is, that it comes within the purview and scope of the constitution of the United States, that the several Legislatures shall not have the power to impair the obligation of contracts. The Supreme Court holds that it is a part of the constitution of the United States. That our constitution should declare something of the kind, is necessary. Although the Legislature might pass such laws, the courts could not give them effect so as to impair the remedy of a contract made under a given law. The proposi tion under consideration appeared subject to some objections. If modified, he [Mr. B.] would cheerfully go for it. Mr. BUSH-My attention was drawn to the subject by the amendment which was voted down. I sent up the resolution merely that this Convention might establish the principle, and in some way cover the views which I wish to express. It is true, sir, that the supreme court has established a principle with regard to retrospective laws; but what has been the action of the Legislature of Michigan? Have not such laws been passed from time to time? The exemption law of 1842 was retrospective. Since that time, even the remedy which was reserved for the creditors has been taken away. The character of the leg islation of the State has been contrary to the decisions of the Supreme Court And my object in introducing this resolution is, that I wish it to be distinctly understood that if such laws are passed, they are passed right in the face of the constitution; and I want this pointed out so clearly that none can mistake. of the United States. previously held to be innocent, without such change being made before the commission of the act. So with the word "exemption;" that likewise has not a fixed judicial meaning. I think the objeet of the gentleman would be obtained without the use of any words that would be productive of litigation. When the remedy enters into a part of the contract, the Legislature has not the power to interfere, under the constitution of the United States. If we do not go as far, or equal to the provisions of the constitution of the United States, it will be of no use, as grounds will always be taken upon the highest authority; but we may go farther, and properly so, in favor of our own citizens, provided we do not run counter to the constitution of the United States. Mr. FRALICK-I agree with my colleague, that it might create some difficulty. People like me, not learned in the law, might have supposed that the remedy to tract itself; at any rate, I would like to enforce a contract was a part of the conknow what is the use of setting forth an obligation, if there is no remedy? If a man agrees to pay me a certain sum for a certain thing done, if I have no remedy, or steps in and takes away the remedy, is not cannot use the remedy, or the. Legislature the obligation of the contract taken away? The Legislature of 1842 passed an act taking away the remedy; that is, they said that the laws enforcing execution previous to that year should not be enforced; and probably many persons on this floor could Now, if this Convention is going to sanctestify to that fact to their great injury. Mr. WITHERELL-I think the lan- tion this doctrine, we ought to know it. I think, sir, that the passage of this law guage of the original section is not suffi ciently explicit. In the first place, it says caused the people of this State to be held "no bill of attainder." Well, what is a bill up as a by-word and a reproach. of attainder? It was a power which the were told we were not to be trusted. We British parliament possessed. by which by had got their property, we did not pay them agreed to do a certain thing, and after we an act, they could seize and hang a manfor it. If we are to have exemptions, why probably draw and quarter him-without any trial at all-without a hearing, even, fulfilled as it was made. If it is thought let it be so; but let every contract be if he was beyond the seas. Well, what is best to let the Legislature change the reman ex post facto law? If there were no judicial interpretations, we should natural-edy, let us so state it, but do not let us use ly say that it applied to all contracts. But language that may tend to deceive. the courts of judicatory will say that it merely means that none shall be punished as a criminal, for acts which the law has We Mr. WARDEN moved to insert after the word "contract," in section 16, "and no law altering or changing any law ex |