instructed to inquire into the expediency of providing for the trial and determination of impeachments and charges against officers, involving their removal, in some court of judicature. By Mr. COMSTOCK: Resolved, That the committee on the militia be instructed to inquire into the expediency of incorporating into the constitution of this State, a provision exempting from militia duty any inhabitant of this State, of any religious denomination whatever, who, from scruples of conscience, is averse to bearing arms, upon such condition as shall be prescribed by law. : the constitution, that no county or counties, township or city, shall be liable for the expense of laying out or establishing any road or roads, authorized by special act of the Legislature. Mr. WHITE offered the following: Resolved, That the Auditor General of this State be, and he is hereby requested to furnish for the use of this Convention, a statement of the annual expenses of the State government since its organization. That such statement embrace a list of the State officers, the number of clerks and other persons employed by them respectively in each year, and the salary or compensation paid to each; also the annual expenditure of the several departments of government, Executive, Judicial and Legislative. That the Auditor General be requested to furnish to the Convention a statement of the annual amount of State tax apportioned to be paid by each county; the yearly amount of delinquent or unpaid taxes returned to the Auditor's office from the several counties, and showing the amount of the original tax levied, the amount of interest which accrued thereon, the amount of office fees and other contingent expenses, if any, charged to said tax, and the amount of taxes rejected, with interest, &c., which have been charged back to the respective counties in each year. On motion of Mr. FRALICK, Resolved, That the committee on militia be instructed to inquire into the expediency of providing for the enrollment of all persos liable to military duty, and the abolition of militia trainings, except those of independent companies. Mr. BUSH was of the opinion that all the information sought in the resolution could not be obtained; but if the Auditor General could furnish it in twenty days, he would have no objection to the resolution. He would suggest to the gentleman [Mr. WHITE,] to permit the resolution to lay on the table until it was ascertained whether the information could be had. The resolution was laid on the table. On motion of Mr. BACKUS, Resolved, That the committee on towns and counties be instructed to inquire into the expediency of reporting a provision in Mr. ORR offered the following: Resolved, That the judiciary committee be requested to inquire into the expediency of reporting a constitutional provision dispensing with the present law on evidence, which now governs in our courts of justice. Mr. WELLS asked that the resolution be read again. [It was read.] Ah! He understood it when first read to dispense with "all law and evidence." The resolution was lost. Mr. McLEOD offered the following: Resolved, That the committee on the seat of government be instructed to report on to-morrow the permanent location of the capital at Lansing. Mr. BAGG offered a substitute for the foregoing: Resolved, That the committee on the location of the capital be instructed to report a distinct article in the constitution, to be referred to the people, locating the capital permanently at the city of Detroit. Mr. KINGSLEY stated that the committee were ready to report. The report contained only three lines. Laid on the table. On motion of Mr. BURNS, Resolved, That the committee on county offices and county government be instructed to inquire into the expediency of a constitutional provision, that no county seat shall be removed until the place to which it is proposed to be removed shall be fixed by law, and a majority of two-thirds of the voters of the county voting on the question have voted in favor of its removal. On motion of Mr. CHURCH, Resolved, That the daily sessions of the Mr. EATON submitted the following: adjourns, it adjourn to meet again at three o'clock this afternoon; and that it will hold afternoon sessions, commencing at 3 o'clock each day, until further ordered by the Con vention. Mr. KINGSLEY offered the following substitute to section 9: "The trial by jury shall remain inviolate; but a party requiring a jury shall demand and pay for the same as the law shall provide; and the Mr. J. D. PIERCE hoped the resolution legislature may provide that a less number would not be adopted. It would retard than twelve may constitute a jury." the progress of business, as the commit- Mr. K. said he would state his object in tees were engaged in the afternoons pre-offering the substitute. By the section as paring their reports. Mr. EATON thought the Convention might be engaged during the afternoon in considering the reports already made. The resolution was laid on the table. Mr. WOODMAN offered the following: Whereas, The chairman of the committee on the punishment of crimes, [Mr. WITHERELL,] refuses to act as their chair man; And whereas, No member of said committee feels at liberty to act as chairman; therefore, Resolved, That the committee on the punishment of crimes be discharged. Mr. W. said he offered the resolution that the Convention might know in what situation the committee was. Mr. HANSCOM said the committee could go on and elect a chairman. That was the usual proceeding in such a case. The resolution was not adopted. On motion of Mr. BACKUS, Resolved, That the committee on towns and counties be instructed to inquire into the expediency of reporting a provision in the constitution authorizing the erection of any city into a separate county government, without regard to the territorial extent of such county. On motion of Mr. DANFORTH, the Convention resolved itself into committee of the whole on the Bill of Rights, Mr. BRITAIN in the chair. JURIES. Mr. WALKER'S amendment to section 9 being under consideration, it was modified by him so as to read as follows: Amend section 9 by striking out all after the word "law," in second line, and inserting "but the legislature may authorize a trial by jury of a less number than twelve men for the trial of misdemeanors and civil cases.” Mr. GOODWIN moved to amend the amendment by adding at the end thereof, "in courts held by justices of the peace." it now reads, a jury must be had unless waived by the parties, and both parties would never waive the trial by a jury. When parties go to law, they are not disposed to accommodate each other-what one wants the other will not have, even if he wants it. He was willing a party should have a jury in all cases where he required it, but it would be no hardship to demand a jury, and pay for it such sum as the law may require. If a party is required to call for a jury, and pay for it when he wants it, a jury will not be called for in one case in ten; and much less frequently would a jury of twelve men be called for, if it should be provided that a less number than twelve may constitute a jury. Experience has shown this, that trial by a jury of twelve men has lost its charm. The reason which made it so valuable in England in days gone by, do not exist here. There it was thought a great privilege for a party to be tried by his peers, to protect him against the oppression of the judge; in this country we are all peers; the judge is within our reach. He can be reached by the press, by public opinion, and above all, by the ballot box, which will restrain him from acts of injustice. When parties desire to settle their matters of difference amicably, by leaving it to a tribunal of their own choosing to decide, they know that three men are sufficient to do justice between them--they never choose five or seven, and much less twelve. Indeed, juries of twelve men are now more called for to defeat justice than to obtain it. In a bad case an attorney thinks he stands a better chance to succeed with a jury, and the larger the better. He would prefer twelve to six, and twenty four would be a still better number. Mr. K. said he would not object to a jury in any case where a party required it to guard him against the oppression, partiality or ignorance of the judge, or when he thought his interest required it from any cause; but it is not unreasonable to require a party to demand a jury if he wants it, and to pay for it so much as the law may require. In his county the justices were a very sensible and respectable body, and so far as he could judge, these officers were well chosen throughout the state; but it required some acquaintance with the principles of law to discriminate legally. The best lawyers, and even judges, met with difficulties, having resource to their libraries. Few justices of the peace had the opportunities of becoming acquainted with the principles of law; and if the idea that justice cannot be ordinarily certain through the medium of a single justice of the peace, and that ideal technicalities prevent such a result, be correct, then juries are necessary for the ends of justice. Mr. CRARY-Mr. President, this section 9 may be understood, or not. I will explain. The first part of the clause is taken from the old constitution. The second part is from the constitution of the state of New York, and is in accordance with our present existing law. The third with the exception of the words "all courts.” The constitution of Iowa gives the right of a jury of a less number than twelve, only in inferior courts. Mr. BEARDSLEY said he could not agree with the gentleman from Washtenaw. He was of the opinion that the right of trial by jury should not only remain inviolate, but be insured under all circumstances that all cases, civil as well as criminal, should be tried by a jury, unless waived by both parties. The honest suitor, he thought, was always more sure of justice at the hands of a jury than those of a judge or justice. The opinion that law was a tissue of quibble prevailed to a great extent; and some justices of the peace seemed to believe that they possessed no equitable discretion, and consequently their decisions were often against both law and equity; for they misapprehended the one and rejected the other as inconsistent with their duties. He had known great injustice to be done in a late case, as he believ-part is taken from the constitution of Iowa, ed, by a justice's misapprehension of his duty. A plaintiff in a suit before him had the defendant sworn in order to make him a witness against himself, (the defendant,) but on reflection declined asking him a question. The court, however, allowed the defendant's counsel to examine him by way of cross examination, as to the accounts he claimed against the plaintiff, and as to the whole matter in controversy, and insisted that he was bound by law to receive the testimony of defendant as truth, against plaintiff, (even if he did not believe a word of it,) defendant having been sworn as a witness for the plaintiff; as he (Mr. B.) was informed, the justice admitted that he did not believe the testimony of the defendant, and indeed he could not; for it was too evidently untrue by its inconsistency; and besides, there was the positive and circumstantial evidence of some two or three unimpeachable witnesses against it. Mr. B. said he alluded to this case merely to show that justices of the peace, sometimes at any rate, considered themselves bound down by a rule of law that militated against justice, and sometimes, too, mistake law. The sentiment that little or no equitable discretion belongs to a justice of the peace, (notwithstanding he acts in the double capacity of judge and juror,) he believed to be very prevalent. In changing our government from a territorial to a state form, we preserved the right of trial by jury inviolate. In consequence of that fact, a question has heretofore been raised whether a jury of six in a justices court, in civil causes, was constitutional. The clause now introduced removes all questions in regard to such a jury, and enables the legislature to authorize a jury of a less number than twelve, for the trial of criminal causes in justices' courts. Public convenience seems to require that the exercise of this discretion should be left to the legislature. Mr. S. CLARK stated that the section was drawn as proposed by the member from Lenawee, Mr. TIFFANY. It was not in accordance with his own views. Mr. GALE said if a less number than twelve was sufficient to try a cause in inferior courts, why not apply the rule to superior courts? Reasoning from analogy, it would seem to require the greater number in inferior courts, where there was supposed to be more ignorance, and not in the supreme courts where there was most learning. Mr. HANSCOM moved that the section (9) be passed over. The section was so passed. Mr. S. CLARK then moved to amend section 10 by adding: "Nor shall any person be held to answer for a criminal offence, unless on the presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases of impeachment, or in cases cognizable by justices of the peace, or arising in the army or militia when in actual service in time of war or public danger." Mr. C said it would be seen upon an examination that the amendment proposed by him was section 11 of the old bill of rights, which the committee had stricken out. He did not propose, at this time, to assign all the reasons why he was opposed to striking out this provision-he would briefly state some few considerations by which he was governed. One of the principal objections urged against the grand jury is the expense. This, sir, (said Mr. C.,) I consider not well founded. If gentlemen will reflect, they will find that by abolishing the grand jury, and throwing their duties into other hands, the expense must be vastly increased. In complaints made before the grand jury, bills are not found in more than one-half or onethird of the cases. Do away the grand jury, have your examinations before istrates, and the expenses would double those now incurred; there would be three cases tried to one now. The bills of justices of the peace incurred in criminal business in the most populous counties are very large, and in the whole state amount ! to an enormous sum. mag But there are other considerations more important. The good effect in the restraint of crime, the tendency to prevent offences, is above the question of expense. It is well known to every one, that an able charge to a grand jury, delivered in an impressive and solemn manner by a learned judge, has much weight and influence upon a community. But, sir, there is great complaint in reference to the discharge of their duties by grand jurors. This may be the case in some instances,-it may be they are not properly selected--that unfaithful and incompetent persons are chosen-yet, it is only an abuse of the system which may be corrected, and we have the power to correct it here. It can be done by electing the grand jurors in the townships, or by selecting the oldest justices; or we can resort to some other mode; and let us do so if the present mode does not work well. I, sir, consider the proposition to abolish the grand jury far from being a reform, to be a dangerous innovation; and I call upon its advocates to answer how they will get over the difficulty, in reference to the crimes committed by persons residing on the borders of our state. What remedy do they propose to prevent the depreda tions of the gangs of horse thieves and counterfeiters committed upon citizens of the state? How are they to be reached? How brought to justice? It is proposed to abolish the grand jury, so that no indictment can be found on which to base a requisition. By the constitution of the United States, a person charged with crime and fleeing from justice, shall, upon requisition, be delivered up to the authorities of the state from which he fled. And how charged? Is a simple affidavit, stating the defendant's belief that the accused is guilty, sufficient? or should the fact be positively charged, so that the executive authority may be sure an offence has been committed? I do not, sir, at this moment, recollect but two cases in which a requisition issued upon a simple affidavit; the one was the case of a bank officer in the state of Rhode Island, arrested in the state of New York, and held to be properly charged; the other the case of the prophet, Joe Smith, arrested in Illinois, and after a hearing before Judge Pope, upon the return to a writ of habeas corpus, he was discharged on the ground of the insufficiency of the affidavit on which the requisition was based. What rule then is to be adopted in regard to the numerous class of cases to which I have alluded? They are beyond the jurisdiction of your state courts, and no positive evidence on which to base a requisition, and no way to obtain the requisite evidence except through the instrumentality of a grand jury. But there is another and higher consideration why the proposed change should not be made. I would not entrust in the hands of incompetent prosecuting attorneys this power. It would be taking away the rights of citizens and placing them at the mercy of one or two individuals-the right to have his case first investigated by a grand jury, requiring twelve of their num ber to find a bill, is guarantied to every citizen-the very number of the grand jury being also a guaranty against bribery and malicious prosecutions. As I before stated, I consider the proposition to abrogate this right of the citizen, a hazardous and dangerous innovation. But there is another consideration to be taken in view. Michigan will be the only state in the Union that has yet dared to venture on the experiment of abolishing the grand jury. She has not a single precedent to justify her in taking the step proposed. Connecticut has gone further than any other state in dispensing with a grand jury, confining its duty to the considera tion of higher offences. I am not influenced by precedent, yet in the absence of reason, precedent should have due weight. For these reasons, I am entirely opposed to the proposition to dispense with grand juries. Mr. SULLIVAN said that having had some experience in criminal proceedings, and being satisfied that the sentiment of his constituents was in favor of abolishing the institution of the grand jury, he would occupy the attention of the Convention for a few moments with some remarks on the subject. cretion, more than the prosecuting officer now possesses, into that officer's hands; who, as has been remarked, might be incompetent or dishonest. Let him be competent or incompetent, honest or dishonest, his only power would be what it now is— to draw up the accusation and conduct the trial. The institution of a grand jury, as had been remarked, was an ancient one, and gave pomp and dignity to judicial proceedings. In this, the main difficulty of over throwing it consisted. It was not easy to overcome our veneration for its antiquity, or our respect for the imposing forms connected with it. The imagination clung to it when the judgment had pronounced it worthless. But, said Mr. S., the institution is an expensive one. A grand jury cannot be assembled from various quarters of a county, and remain in session for a few days even, without very serious expense. It had been remarked by the gentleman from Kalamazoo, [Mr. CLARK,] that the expense of proceedings, under the proposed system, would be equal to that of the present one. The facts must be otherwise; for in the first place, you have now, in a great majority of cases, to encounter the expense of both tribunals. When a man committed theft, or robbery, or murder, people did not wait for the session of the grand jury to arrest him. He was complained of, examined, bound over or committed to jail; and finally the case re-examined before the grand jury. In the second place, said Mr. S., the evidence being introduced on both sides before a magistrate, the strong probability was, that under the proposed system, we should have to encounter the expense of trying a much smaller number of innocent men than under the other. A much small Mr. S. said he was not, more than any other man, in favor of putting a person on trial, unless there was probable cause to believe him guilty. He would have no man tried for an aggravated crime, unless a complaint in writing, and under oath, had been made to a magistrate, and an opportunity given to the accused to defend himself. The magistrate should then proceed to hear theer number of complaints would be made allegations and evidence on the part of the prosecution, and the accused; and if probable cause was found to believe him guilty, a certificate to that effect should be made to the prosecuting officer, which should form the basis of an information, to be filed against the accused. This, said Mr. S., was the project he would propose as a substitute for a grand jury. He would commit no power or dis under the proposed system, than under the existing laws. Men went before the grand jury to make light and frivolous accusations, which they would not dare to make in the face of day. They went there to gratify their malevolence-to pull down the honest reputation of a neighbor. They thought they might perhaps convict-if they did not, the infamy of the accusation clung to him, and the accused never occupied the |